Public Bill Committee

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]
[Continuation from column 834]

On resuming

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 229, page 131, line 30, at end insert
(6A) The requirement in subsection (6)(b) shall not apply in circumstances where
(a) the school has no members of staff of the same sex as P, or
(b) the provisions of subsection (4)(b) apply and there are no members of staff of the same sex as P available..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 89, in clause 229, page 131, line 30, at end insert
(6A) The requirement in subsection (6)(c) shall not apply in circumstances where
(a) the school has fewer than two members of staff of the same sex as P, or
(b) the provisions of subsection (4)(b) apply and there are fewer than two members of staff of the same sex as P available..
Amendment 91, in clause 229, page 131, leave out line 33.
Amendment 96, in clause 231, page 134, leave out line 45.

Nick Gibb: It is good to see you fresh and alert, Mr. Chope, on this Friday morning. I just spent half an hour asleep in the office, among the moths, and I now realise that MPs do not need a second home.
Amendment 88 relates to proposed new section 550ZB(6)(b) in the Education Act 1996, which requires that a person carrying out a search
must be of the same sex as P,
P being the pupil being searched. Subsection (4)(b) states that, if off premises, a search may be carried out only if the member of staff has
lawful control or charge of P.
The exemption we seek would be for either a small school where the teachers are of one sex, and that sex is different from that of the pupil being searched, or a school trip with no members of staff of the same sex as that of the pupil being searched.
The Association of School and College Leaders raised the following concern:
We believe that detailed provision for conducting searches should not be on the face of the Bill... There may be occasions (particularly in small schools or on small school trips) when it is important to search but all the conditions cannot be fulfilled. There needs to be some flexibility if senior school leaders are not to be exposed to risk of legal action when doing their duty. Under the Bill a minimum of four staff (two of each gender) must accompany any school trip where there may be a possibility of drugs, alcohol or weapons being carried or bought - clearly this is impracticable and would put an end to many school trips. Given that this is a reserve power for use in emergencies, we think there should be some allowance for emergency use when there is a risk of serious disorder or physical danger.
This is a pragmatic amendment to an important clause giving powers to school staff to search pupils suspected of having on them a prohibited item.
Amendment 89 relates to subsection (6)(c), which states that someone
may carry out the search only in the presence of another member of staff of the same sex as P.
The amendment is similar to the previous amendment, but concerns situations in which there is only one member of staff of the same sex as the pupil being searched. The requirement is that there be more than one. Amendment 91 would leave out line 33 on page 131. That line just reads: P; and. It deals with a search of a pupils property in the presence of the pupil. Subsection (7) states:
Ps possessions may not be searched under section 550ZA except in the presence of...P...and...another member of staff.
That is also of concern to the Association of School and College Leaders, which stated:
We are concerned, however, that the effect of these clauses is that no belongings may be searched except in the presence of the pupil concerned. There are occasions when a school may, for example, find it necessary to have a general locker or bag search while pupils are in class to find stolen or forbidden items without arousing the suspicion of the pupils concerned. To have every child present while this is done would be wholly impracticable. The term possessions is defined as including any goods over which a pupil has or appears to have control. This is helpful in preventing the pupil from saying its not mine, its my friends, but we seek clarification that the term possessions does not cover pupils lockers or desks. We believe that there should be a distinction between the power to search clothing with force and the search for possessions.
It would be helpful if the Minister responded to that question about the definition of possessions in the Bill. Alternatively, if the Minister accepts amendment 91, which would delete line 33, that would remove the problem.
Finally, amendment 96 would essentially remove the same provision for college students, which requires a person of the same sex to be present while their belongings are searched. Again, there may be occasions on which the college authorities need to search bags or lockers to find items such as drugs without wishing to alert the student under suspicion to the search. It would be perfectly pragmatic to remove that prescription from the Bill. I look forward to the Ministers response.

David Laws: May I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Chope, and say good morning to Committee members and those listening to our proceedings in the Gallery? May I particularly thank the staff of the two Departments and the staff of the House who have remained with us? They have been extremely patient in spite of the fact that they have probably had to deal with unusual circumstances and have perhaps slept in places where they have not slept before. That is very much appreciated.
The amendments are important. I confess that I considered tabling something similar. These requirements seem onerous. There are concerns that schools are becoming inclined to shy away from school trips because of their real and perceived health and safety obligations. Some of those concerns may not be genuine, and schools may have excessive concerns over the risk of legal action, but some concerns are genuine, and they relate to issues such as those specified in these provisions. They are highlighted particularly in the earlier amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
Sad though it is, I understand that we live in an age when these powers must be exercised very carefully by school staff. Their activities are open to great scrutiny, and claims are sometimes made by pupils and others about inappropriate activity by staff. I appreciate the need for proper protections not only for pupils but for staff members who could be at risk of having their reputations impugned. That is what caused me to shy away from my natural inclination to try to amend these provisions to make them more reasonable. I am attracted to the hon. Gentlemans earlier amendments because they focus on small schools or schools with a restricted number of teachers of one or both sexes. In that situation, there is a particular reason for providing greater flexibility than we might otherwise, and for ensuring that the reasonable actions of teaching staff are possible and that we do not inadvertently deter schools from taking their pupils on school trips, where such issues often arise.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The existing legislation on the powers to search for knives and other offensive weapons includes a number of important safeguards to ensure that power is not used inappropriately.
Before I go any further with my remarks, however, I must beg your indulgence, Mr. Chope. Hon. Members may have noticed that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport was not with us last week. Her father was very seriously ill, and I regret to inform the Committee that he has since died. He was previously an hon. Member, and I am sure that the Committee will wish to pass on its condolences.
The safeguards include a requirement that the person conducting the search must be of the same sex as the learner, and that the search must be carried out in the presence of another staff member who is also the same sex as the learner. They also require that searches of the learners possessions are conducted in the presence of the learner and a second member of staff. Several of the safeguards were introduced during the passage of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, in response to concerns about human rights issues, and I understand why hon. Members would wish to remove them in certain circumstances. However, they are important safeguards that are intended to protect the learner and the member of staff conducting the search.
One instance that the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton both mentioned was school visits, but our guidance on those says that if a power to search is required, people should call the police. Most secondary schools and colleges, which are much more likely to use the power, will have a mix of staff, so it is likely that the issue of not having staff of the same gender as learners will apply only in primary schools, and we do not think that that justifies removing the safeguards from the entire school and college system.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady will have seen statistics that show the very small proportion of male teachers in primary schools. I do not have the data here, but it is very likely that a significant number of even medium-sized primary schools will have no male members of staff, although they will, of course, have male children. What does the Minister envisage in those circumstances? Is she saying that the power will not apply to that significant number of primary schools?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The word that we need to use is proportionate, and we should also point out that the provision is a power, not a duty. If it is not appropriate for a school or college to undertake a search, it is not required to do so. The powers are much more likely to be used in secondary schools and colleges, and that is why, on balance, we should not remove the safeguards.

Nick Gibb: The Minister must be a little out of touch if she has not been reading aboutor, given her position, heard first handthat violence is increasing among very young children. There is, therefore, a strong likelihood that they will possess contraband, so I am surprised that she uses proportionate and power, not a duty in relation to the clause. There seems to be a hole in the clause, because she admits that the provision is not applicable to a significant number of primary schools, where the amount of poor behaviour, violence and, undoubtedly, children with banned and illegal products, is increasing.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The other point is that we are discussing a certain power without consent, but schools can, of course, require children to turn out their pockets. The safeguards are important, and we have come to the view that we need to keep them in the system.
It is worth noting that the requirement that the learner be present while his possessions are searched is to protect not only learners basic human rights, but the member of staff conducting the search against accusations of theft or of planting evidence. Failure to comply with that requirement might render any evidence unreliable. Possessions covers lockers, and schools can make it a condition of having a locker that pupils consent to a general search of lockers.
I appreciate hon. Members reservations about the approach, but, by enshrining those important safeguards in the Bill, we will ensure that the powers are used appropriately and protect the rights of staff and learners. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: That is not really a satisfactory response. Essentially, the Minister is saying that this provision has been put in the Bill to give teachers what she believes is an important power. However, it is only a power, not a duty, and should not be used where primary schools have no male members of staff or if there is a school trip where there are no male members of staff. In those circumstancesbe it in the Peak district, the middle of the countryside and so onstaff in charge of pupils should call the police. That would no doubt be the Ministers advice in a primary school where there were genuine grounds for suspecting that a male pupil had in his possession something that could potentially harm another child or teacher, such as an offensive weapon. In those circumstances she recommends that the primary school calls the police to deal with the five, seven or nine-year-old.
In our school system, we are seeing increasing numbers of examples of police being called out to deal with fights in the playgrounda direction of travel that the public do not want. They do not want nine-year-olds arrested and taken to the police station for hitting another child. With that policy we are going down a pathway that potentially criminalises young childrenan experience that could traumatise them.
I was never naughty as a child, so I would not know what happens, but I understand from others that even being sent to the head teacher or out of the classroom is a traumatic experience for a young child. Imagine what it would be like if a policeman suddenly appears and asks to see a six or seven-year-old child in a primary school. It seems bizarre. It is particularly frustrating, because the problem could easily be solved by the amendments, which do not put a coach and horses through the legislation but merely make a small exemption for circumstances where there are small primary schools or school trips with no male teachers. I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not accept the amendment and I am tempted to press it to a vote. On the other hand, we want to make progress, so this might be something that we can discuss again on Report.

Bill Wiggin: As a parent of young children, I cannot imagine how horrified I would be if, having signed the consent forms and allowed my child to go off to the Lake district or wherever, I found that the police had been summoned to such an event, even if the child in question was not concerned at all. That is absolutely wrong. It sends all the wrong signals and does not provide the sort of confidence that parents expect. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an issue should be discussed on the Floor of the House? It is a serious matter that other colleagues might wish to discuss.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes a good point from his perspective as a parent. We should return to this matter later in the proceedings of the Bill. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 356, in clause 229, page 131, line 35, after section, insert and in section 550ZC.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 354, in clause 229, page 132, line 2, after 550ZA, insert
or, if he is not the person carrying out the search, a member of the security staff of the school,.
Amendment 355, in clause 229, page 132, line 6, at beginning insert
in the case of a member of the security staff of the school,.
Amendment 359, in clause 229, page 132, leave out lines 12 to 40 and insert
(4) A person who, under subsection (1), seizes any item other than alcohol and its container, must deliver it to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable..
Amendment 357, in clause 229, page 132, line 40, at end insert
(10) In this section
alcohol has the same meaning as in section 191 of the Licensing Act 2003;
controlled drug has the same meaning as it has by virtue of section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;
stolen, in relation to an article, has the same meaning as it has in section 24 of the Theft Act 1968..
Amendment 397, in clause 229, page 133, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 358, in clause 229, page 133, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Nick Gibb: The amendment was suggested by the National Union of Teachers, and Liberal Democrat colleagues have subscribed to it. It is a joint tour de force, and as such I am sure that it will find favour with the Minister,
Essentially, the NUT says that although it is appreciated that the provision is intended to confer a power, there are circumstances in which it may be found that there is a legal duty to exercise a power when it is necessary to do so in order to protect children from harm. The NUT acknowledges that there are situations in which teachers might need a power to search and would wish to have that power clearly defined so that they need not fear contravention of the Human Rights Act or prosecution for an offence against the person.
However, teachers are not law enforcement officers, and they have no reason to risk assault by insisting on searching a pupil who is capable of a violent reaction. They say that their power to search should be linked directly to their responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of pupils under their supervision and care. Teachers have serious worries about using powers to search or restrain pupils, and the law tends to be uncertain for them. Section 96(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 uses the word proportionate, and the burden is on the teacher to prove that his or her action was proportionate and therefore lawful.
That is too much of a burden, and the consequence is that teachers often do not wish to use the powers. That is a great shame. The powers are useful in maintaining order in schools, but they can also be important in protecting the child in question as well as other children, teachers and staff in a school. The amendments would be useful in crystallising the legal position. It would be interesting to hear the Governments response, and I am sure the NUT would be grateful to hear it.

David Laws: I support the amendments, obviously, as we have also signed them. I commend the National Union of Teachers for its assiduous lobbying of both Opposition parties. You will be grateful to hear that I will not repeat the arguments, Mr. Chope, as I have the same briefing note as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and am therefore likely to make similar arguments. However, I would like to address one point on which the NUT raised concerns and suggested amendments. Neither he nor I tabled those amendments, but they relate to amendment 359, which he underplayed with typical modesty.
Amendment 359 deals with what an individual should do with confiscated items. We have not signed up to the amendment; it was tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues alone. Essentially, it relates to page 132 of the Bill, and would omit a large chunk of the lines between 12 and 40, inserting a subsection (4) placing a responsibility on an individual who seizes any item other than alcohol and its container to deliver the item to a police constable as soon as is practical. In other words, any items confiscated must be handed over to a police constable, unless they are alcohol.
That is not what the Bill says at the moment, which is why the hon. Gentleman is seeking to amend it. The Bill contains provisions that make it necessary to hand weapons over to a police officer, but in the case of controlled drugs, the individual who confiscates them has a choice either to deliver them to a police constable as soon as practical or dispose of them if the person thinks that there is good reason to do so. In relation to stolen articles there is also a provision either to deliver those to a police constable or to return them to their owners.
I can understand why the provisions are included. They are included for the sort of reasons that the hon. Gentleman and I often raise: because the Government probably do not want there excessive bureaucracy to fall on those people who confiscate items. For example, the provisions allow the head teacher, teachers or other individuals concerned to return a stolen itempresumably, some minor item that belongs to a pupil or an item in respect of which its ownership is cleardirectly to their owner.
I assume also that the provisions in subsection (4) on page 132 are designed to allow a teacher or head teacher who confiscates a small amount of drugs essentially to just flush them down the toilet or dispose of them in a waste paper bin, or by some other process. However, the National Union of Teachers has raised an issue that amendment 359 touches on: whether it is sensible to allow such flexibility and freedom. The note that the NUT provided to the hon. Gentleman and me, and to my colleagues, said that it believes that the Bill
should restrict the seizure, retention and disposal powers
and that,
since teachers are not law enforcement officers and therefore, should not be deciding whether to dispose of property they confiscate other than perhaps alcohol,
it is concerned about the provisions, particularly in relation to drugs and also, to some extent, in relation to stolen items.
We did not table a load of amendments ourselves, straight off, because I anticipated the Ministers response. This is one of the few areas in which the Government do not want to add to the burden of bureaucracy on schools and do not want to end up with some hugely convoluted process whereby a mobile phone that has obviously been stolen from another pupil has to be returned to the local police station, or a tiny fraction of some drug has to be returned to the police, who are likely to be supremely uninterested.
There are serious concerns about the circumstances in which individuals should be returning items to police officers and under what circumstances they should be handing them back. Those circumstances have implications in respect of stolen itemsif people are making judgments about who the ownership resides withand, in respect of drugs, it most certainly has important significance, because if the teacher or head teacher simply retains those drugs, particularly if they have a significant market value, all sorts of accusations may be made against them about improper behaviour.
I invite the Minister, in responding to amendment 359, to say a little bit about the Governments thinking here and how these discretionary powers should be used.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendments 354 to 356 relate to the role of school security staff. Collectively, the amendments would allow a member of school security staff to seize items found during a search, even if that member of security staff did not conduct the search, and would restrict the power to seize items found during a search that are suspected of being evidence of an offence to school security staff only.
We have proposed this new legislation to strengthen all schools disciplinary authority, not just those with security staff. Removing a teachers authority to seize items found during a search, whether those are prohibited or suspected of being evidence of an offence, lessens the effectiveness of this power, which is not something that I wish to see.
The clause enables members of the security staff to undertake a search when the head teacher feels it is appropriate and authorises them to do so. Furthermore, the person undertaking the search should be able to make the decision on how to deal with any items found during that search, whether they are a member of the school teaching staff or security staff. Amendments 359 and 357 would require that where a person seizes anything other than alcohol they must deliver it to a police constable as soon as is reasonably practical. We would not want to restrict the handling of all seized prohibited items in that way, although I agree that that should be required in relation to knives and other offensive weapons. However, I do not agree that that is always necessary or desirable with regard to some stolen articles and controlled drugs. It is appropriate for the person seizing such articles to have discretion about whether to contact the police.
The clause requires that controlled drugs and stolen articles must be delivered to a police constable as soon as it is reasonably practical, unless the person who has seized it considers that there is a good reason not to take that course of action. The hon. Member for Yeovil spoke about drugs. Our Departments drugs guidance for schools states that the law permits school staff to take temporary possession of a substance suspected of being an illegal drug for the purposes of preventing an offence in relation to that drug being committed or continued, providing all reasonable steps are taken to destroy the drug or deliver it to a person lawfully entitled to take custody of it.
We have anecdotal evidence that many schools simply flush small amounts of drugs down the toilet, rather than involve the police. Our policy intention is to allow that practice to continue. We are also aware that in some areas, schools and police forces have locally agreed protocols for dealing with that sort of issue, and we want those sorts of arrangements to continue. It is also our intention to avoid situations in which the police might be called to a school to deal with trivial incidents, such as a stolen pencil. In coming to their decision, the person will have to have regard for our Departments guidance and we will ensure that our guidance is clear on that issue.
Amendments 397 and 358 relate to the defence for school staff who act lawfully in confiscating, retaining or disposing of items belonging to pupils. Under the current law, members of staff are required to act lawfully and reasonably in their treatment of pupils. The legislation places the onus on the school staff member to show that the confiscation, retention or disposal of an item is lawful. Seizing, retaining and disposing of a pupils property is an infringement of their rights under article 8 and article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. Therefore, any legislation permitting that and providing a defence in the case of damage or loss must be clear, justifiable and proportionate. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that there must remain an overriding obligation on school staff to act lawfully and reasonably. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to the Ministers response to the concerns of the National Union of TeachersI am sure that its members will either be listening now or will read the transcript laterand I am grateful for that. In the light of that full response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 229, page 133, line 10, at end insert
(1A) In section 94(2) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c.40) (defence where confiscation lawful) leave out if he proves that the seizure, retention or disposal (as the case may be) was lawful (whether or not by virtue of section 91) and insert if the item was prohibited by the published rules of the school..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 83, in clause 229, page 133, line 10, at end insert
(1A) In section 93(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c.40) (power of member of staff to use force) after subsection (1)(c) there is inserted
(d) attempting to leave a room in which the pupil is subject to a disciplinary penalty which consists of the detention of that pupil outside school sessions..
Amendment 92, in clause 229, page 133, line 10, at end insert
(1A) In section 91(6) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c.40) (enforcement of disciplinary penalties) omit paragraph (a)..
Amendment 93, in clause 229, page 133, line 10, at end insert
(1A) In section 92(3) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c.40) (enforcement of disciplinary penalties) omit paragraph (c)..

Nick Gibb: In order to make progress, Mr. Chope, I shall not pursue the amendments now.

Bill Wiggin: But we would like to bring them back on Report.

Clause 229 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 230 to 232 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 233

Recording and reporting the use of force in schools: England

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 233, page 136, leave out lines 36 to 38.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 210, in clause 233, page 136, line 41, at end insert
subject to the discretion and professional judgement of the headteacher..
Amendment 87, in clause 233, page 137, leave out lines 3 and 4.
Amendment 94, in clause 233, page 137, line 7, at end insert
(4A) Guidance issued under subsection (4) must not advise the retention of incident record forms beyond a period of three years..

Nick Gibb: The clause is another important provision. Amendment 86 would take out lines 36 to 38 on page 136, which actually means removing proposed new section 93A(1)(a), which states that the governing body of a school in England must ensure that a procedure is in place for
recording each significant incident in which a member of the staff uses force on a pupil for whom education is being provided.
The amendment would remove the requirement to record those incidents.
Amendment 210 would simply add a phrase to the end of proposed new section 93A(1)(b). As currently drafted the Bill provides that the governing body must ensure that a procedure is in place for
reporting each use of force incident...to each parent of the pupil as soon as practicable after the incident.
That leaves no discretion for a head teacher or the governing body of a school on reporting an incident to parents. I can understand the purpose of the clause. Of course, if a child is physically restrained at school by a member of staff, a parent has the right to know that has happened. I am aware of incidents in some of my hon. Friends constituencies in which force has been used, but no report was made to the parents of the child, and it caused a massive row when the parents eventually found out. There is thus a case for ensuring that all incidents in which force is used are reported to the parents. Amendment 210 does not change that. It just adds the phrase
subject to the discretion and professional judgement of the headteacher.
The reason for that requirement of discretion is that there may be circumstances in which reporting the use of physical force may cause that child even further problems at home. It may even lead to abuse at home. That was the view of Chris Keates from the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers. In our evidence session on 5 March, he said:
Though it is right to report incidents of this sort to parents, we think it is important that the school has the flexibility to determine how that is done. For example, there could be a child who is at risk of abuse at home, and reporting directly to the parent about an incident might put that child at even further risk of abuse from the family. The school must have the flexibility to say that it would report to the parent but through an agency that might already be dealing with the family, such as social services. So, reporting to parents is the one area where we think clarification would be helpful.
Will the Minister respond to the important point made by Chris Keates about whether some guidance or clarity might be provided to schools? However, I cannot see how guidance could overrule the very explicit provision that the school must report the incident to parents. That was also the view of John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers. He said:
If a head teacher decides not to report a significant incident to a parent because they believe that to do so endangers the child because the parent may take it out physically on that child when that child returns home, you are caught in a bind. Do you seek to protect the child because the incident is over and done withthe restraint has taken placeyet the parent is likely to exacerbate it? We do not know where this has come from and we are concerned about it.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 5 March; c. 88-89, Q221.]
That concern could be quite easily addressed if the Government were to accept amendment 210.
Amendment 87 takes out lines 3 and 4 on page 137, which, in essence, is taking out subsection (3) from proposed new section 93A, which states:
The procedure must require that a record of a use of force incident is made in writing as soon as practicable after the incident.
The proposal is similar to amendment 86, which removes the requirement to record such incidents at all.
Amendment 94 would add guidance to the clause. It says:
Guidance issued under subsection (4) must not advise the retention of incident record forms beyond a period of three years.
Currently the guidance says that any written record of use of force has to be kept for 10 years, which seems an excessively long period to keep a record. For a school to keep records of every incident for 10 years is a large administrative burden.
To ensure that the provisions are justified, it would be helpful for the Minister to explain why existing guidance states that records must be kept for 10 years. Most records are kept for six yearscertainly those for tax purposes. Although the issue is far more serious than tax, I cannot understand why it would be necessary to keep records for such a long time. The concern is that the more administrative burdens that are placed on schools that use powers to maintain order and discipline, the less it is likely that teachers will use those powers. We need to clarify the law, so that there is no risk that teachers inadvertently sway beyond what the law permits.
We need to make the law crisp and clear. We also need to make it simple to administer and functional, which means reducing as far as possible the administrative burdens that can deter a teacher from using powers that are important if a school is to maintain law and order on its premises, which is essential if children are to be happy and safe during their school years. I await the Ministers response with anticipation.

David Laws: I seek your guidance, Mr. Chope. My reading of the amendments is that they would take out a lot of the substance of the clause, returning policy more or less to where it is now. For that reason I welcome them. Therefore, with your permission, I shall talk to the amendments but not to clause stand part, because I suspect that my comments will be wide.

Christopher Chope: That is a very constructive suggestion from the hon. Gentleman and I endorse that approach.

David Laws: I am grateful, Mr. Chope. However, the bad news is that I think that this is an extremely important part of the Bill, and one that we might come to regret if we pass the Bill in its existing form. I would like to have a close look at the rationale for the proposals in the Bill and to reflect on some of the evidence that the Committee was given in the evidence sessions. If it cheers up other members of the Committee, although I make no promises not to speak again, this is the last big part of the Bill that I shall have a real rampage across. I hope that Ministers will feel inspired by that.

Siôn Simon: Although some of us on the Government Benches thought earlier that the hon. Gentleman was going on a bitsometimes, we felt, almost deliberatelyit would come as a source of considerable disappointment to many of us if he curtailed his remarks on the rest of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has enlightened us.

David Laws: I am cheered. I was saddened when the Minister implied yesterday that I was filibustering. He needs to speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners, who would tell him that is the normal length of my speeches on such occasions. In fact, I thought that I was being rather brief, given the time of night.

Emily Thornberry: If the length of time that the hon. Gentleman was speaking last night is a normal amount, but he is having a full rampage now, would he be able to give us a rough idea of how long that might take?

David Laws: The hon. Lady is safe to go for a cup of coffee, if that is what her question is about.
The clause is an important part of the Bill. The whole issue is whether guidance that already exists for recording incidents of the use of force should be made obligatory and a statutory duty on the school. We took a lot of evidence about that during the Committee proceedings when we took evidence from the teaching unions. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, with typical fairness, acknowledged that one of the teaching unions, the NASUWT, was broadly supportive of the power, with some concerns and reservations. However, the two other teaching unions from which we took evidencethe NUT and the Association of School and College Leadersprovided powerful evidence that supported the views that I had come to in any case, which are very similar to those of the hon. Gentleman. Those views are that the provision is not necessary and will be counter-productive.
We had a debate about a particular case, on which I invited the leaders of the three big unions to comment. We were talking about a situation in which a teacher, seeing a fight between two students in the playground, had to decide not only whether to intervene to break it up, but, if the fight had to be broken up with the use of force that was mild but caused one of the pupils to fall over and marginally scrape his or her elbow on the ground, whether that would be regarded as significant enough to have to be recordedsignificant enough for all the paperwork to have to be filled in. The Government impact assessment estimates that it will take 20 minutes on average to do that work and that there will be a cost of £9.22 per school per day for the cases that may have to be taken up.
Not only will the incident have to be recorded as a statutory duty even when there are considerable doubts about whether it was a significant event, but the school will have to write to the parents of the child against whom force was usedI do not know whether that means both the child who was pushed slightly and the child who happened to fall overto notify them of that. That is not only unnecessary and incredibly bureaucratic, but quite dangerous, because it is likely to stimulate many complaints from parents, who probably will be receiving letters about incidents of a quite minor nature. At the moment, those parents would not be notified, but in the future, if this becomes statutory, there will be much greater pressure on staff to notify.
I contrast the excessive regulation in this case with the quite sensible comments that the Minister made a few minutes ago about the need not to be over-bureaucratic with schools when it comes to the confiscation of items and their return to people from whom they may have been stolen, or the disposal of small amounts of drugs.
As well as the evidence that we took in Committee, there is an interesting paperthe Government impact assessmentthat discusses in commendably concise terms the proposals in the clause. On pages 148 and 149, that assessment goes through the reasons why the proposals make sensewhy it makes sense to move from guidance to a statutory dutyand it talks about the benefits to three groups of people. We need to consider whether those benefits are real or whether there is not a degree of living in a parallel universe where the statements and claims that have been made just do not ring true.
The first benefit from the changes is supposed to be this:
Pupils will feel safer in schools knowing that they and their fellow pupils will only be restrained by use of force as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent a pupil from doing, or continuing to do, any of the following.
The assessment then lists the relevant actions.
I would be staggered if any pupil felt any safer after the Bill came into being, because it is already the case that any responsible member of staff would properly police incidents in schools in which there was ill-discipline. They would break up fights. They already have clear statutory guidance in that regard. It is not remotely likely that pupils will feel safer.
In fact, pupils might feel considerably less safe, and I shall explain why. If I were a teacher, were on one side of the playground, saw a particularly ferocious fight between two 15 or 16-year-old students and had to decide whether to sprint over to the other side of the playground and break that fight up, I would be no more inclined and perhaps less inclined to do soI hope that the professional teachers would be equally inclined, and no doubt they would beif I knew that if I broke up that fight and used what might be regarded as significant force, I would have to write all that down. I would be less inclined to do it if I knew that I would have to take, on the Governments own estimate, 20 minutesthe cost would be £9.22to fill out some forms to specify what I had done in case someone challenged whether I had used force in a significant way.
I would also be very worried about the process of having to write to the parents of those children to notify them that I had taken that action. What possible response could there be from parents to a formal letter or a telephone call from a school to notify them that a teacher had had to use significant force or restraint against their child? I would hope that the more responsible among them might support the teachers and head teachers but I fear that there are quite a few parents out there who instinctively take the side of the child against the school. They have had bad experiences at school themselves and are inclined to regard teachers and head teachers as threats, rather than as people who are on their side. I fear that this will lead to many more instances of parents making complaints to schools and pursuing these matters in a way that would cause an enormous amount of bureaucracy.
We are told that parents might feel more confident knowing that they would be contacted if their child had been restrained at school. This is the only area that I can see where there could be any benefit from the measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised the issue in the evidence session. That type of intervention may be more frequent with special needs youngsters, and if such interventions are being made, there should be a greater degree of responsibility on the school to ensure that the parents know about it.
It may well be that action should be being taken and it probably is being taken. However, the provision should ensure that these types of problems are being dealt with. Even then I am not necessarily sure that it outweighs the other costs and whether in some of the more marginal cases parents would want to be notified in that way. Concerns would be raised in a way that led them to believe they were extremely serious when actually the incident may not be serious at all.
The other group, the staff, who are supposed to be the great beneficiaries of this, are almost inevitably losers, too. The impact assessment says:
Staff will benefit because there is a written record with witnesses and justification of the use of force. It should also help to improve the relationship between school and parents as there will be seen to be a more open flow of information, with a proper system of recording incidents of staff restraining or otherwise physically interacting with pupils.
It goes on to list a series of supposed benefits to staff: legal protection will be offered to staff in cases where a parent seeks to prosecute; and school staff will be less likely to refrain from physical contact for fear of malicious allegations against them. That is frankly the complete opposite of the conclusion that many people, including me, would draw from the changes.
The proposals will make the position no better for pupils; possibly they will make it more dangerous. The benefits for parents are ambiguous except in the case of special needs youngsters. I would imagine that the number of cases where they are not notified of the behaviour of their children is relatively small. Certainly for staff this provision will make the situation much worse. There will be much more bureaucracy and much more reticence to intervene in such cases.
Interestingly, the regulatory impact assessment is unable to come up with any estimates in the aggregate, either of the costs or the benefits of the project. It states:
The majority of schools are already recording and reporting significant incidents where use of force has been used and reporting them to parents.
In other wordsthe point was made by a number of people in evidence to uswhere this needs to happen the guidance is already having force. The risk is that in making these duties statutory we will extend them in ways that are completely unwelcome. That is presumably why the Committee has received so much critical evidence on the subject. A number of representations have been made by the NUT and there was a powerful representation from John Dunford, one of the most experienced and wise leaders in the education field. He said:
On the use of force, we are clear that if there is a major use of force then that is something the school would wish to communicate about with a parent, and schools already do that. If, on the other hand, a teacher goes into the playground to break up a fight and does so, we do not want to get into a position where that kind of thing has to be reported to parentswe should just deal with it and get on with life. It might be on the face of the Bill or it might be in guidance, but we want to make it clear that that duty relates only to significant use of force...Otherwise, frankly, we would not want another legal duty in this area.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2009; c. 87, Q221.]
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton also cited John Bangs, who has enormous experience in education and is a very respected and senior member of the NUT. John Bangs also gave powerful evidence on the issue:
We are concerned about the recording of incidents of force to control or restrain pupils. We do not know where this has come from. We advise in all our behaviour guidance that incidents should be recorded for the protection of teachers. I do not think that any other union would take a different view. I am sure that we all take that decision.
Later in the same evidence session, John Bangs, who has a lot of experience in this area, referred to his own time in teaching:
I taught in a special school for 18 years. It was a secondary school for moderate learning difficulties. It was a proxy for mild emotional, behavioural difficulties. To prevent a child from running out of the classroom door, you had to physically intervene. Did I have to record that every time? No, because that was the nature of the children in the school. The school had a restraint policy, which was understood consistently. We also had a policy about intervening to help other members of staff, not in terms of force, but behaviour.
He concluded:
The danger with putting this into legislation and then identifying what is significant is that the normal relationships that you have, particularly with tough pupils, will be undermined because you constantly have to check back to see whether you have to record it. As John said
that is, John Dunford
there has to be professional judgment in the context of the behaviour and restraint policy of the school.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2009; c. 88-91, Q221 and 226.]
I believe that that is absolutely right and that the judgment of the NUT and the ASCL is right in relation to these matters.
Therefore, we should think twice before we land schools with a great new bureaucracy that will make pupils less safe, create more burdens on staff and make them more reluctant to intervene, and that will have only an ambiguous benefit, if it has any benefit at all, for parents. I must say that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on these matters are exactly right and deal with all the deficiencies that have been identified in the evidence that has been given to the Committee.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Currently schools have powers to use reasonable and proportionate force either to control or restrain pupils, in order to prevent an offence being committed, injury or damage being caused or serious disruption to school discipline being created. However, what the law does not currently require is that significant incidents of force be recorded or reported to parents.
That is a gap in the current arrangements, which was highlighted in a case in late 2006-07; it may be the case that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who speaks for the Conservatives, was referring to. It involved a young girl with special educational needs who had been repeatedly restrained in school without the parent being informed. Although the schools actions in restraining the child were found to be reasonable, some hon. Members rightly expressed concern at the lack of a requirement to record and report such actions to parents. Therefore, the Government committed to closing that loophole.
Most schools already record incidents of force and many of them make reports to parents. Both these practices are recommended as good practice in the Departments guidance to schools on the use of force. The clause consolidates that good practice. As a further safeguard, the clause requires schools to have regard to the section of the guidance on the recording and reporting of significant incidents. We are revising our guidance. I think that the key point to remember is the word significant, which is the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil made when referring to John Dunfords evidence. Our revised guidance will make it clear what the new legal duties on schools regarding the recording and reporting to parents will mean in practical terms and we will, of course, be consulting on that guidance.
Ensuring that there is a proper written record will protect the interests not only of pupils and parents but of staff, meaning that disputes about the veracity of events can be minimised. It will make it less likely that school staff will refrain from physical contact for fear of a mischievous allegation against them. Furthermore, we do not envisage that recording an individual incident should add a significant administrative burden. The guidance to schools includes a one-page model form for recording incidents, which should be fairly easy for schools to complete. That section of the guidance also draws attention to wider issues around pupil safeguarding and the circumstances when a school might need to involve other agencies.
I appreciate that hon. Members are concerned to limit the requirements placed on schools, but there are important reasons why clause 233 is framed in the way it is. I am sure that I do not need to remind hon. Members that the most important reason is child protection. I will first speak to amendments 86 and 87. The recording of each significant incident of use of force and keeping an accurate record will protect both the pupils and the teachers involved. The circumstances leading up to and surrounding incidents of use of force are often confusing and emotive, and it is important that a contemporary, clear and honest report is made of such an incident so that the appropriate facts and time scales can be accurately recorded when they are still fresh in the mind. Many schools have already implemented mechanisms for recording and reporting incidents of use of force. The clause merely reinforces existing good practice and should impose little additional burden on schools.
On amendment 210, I recognise that the requirement to report each use of force incident might in a small minority of cases provoke an inappropriate violent reaction from parents. However, that risk needs to be weighed against the risk of keeping parents in the dark on such a serious matter as their child being restrained. The clause properly requires a procedure that ensures parents are always informed as soon as possible of significant incidents where force has been used on their child. It enables prompt action to be taken and helps to stop problems escalating.
When giving evidence earlier in our deliberations, Sir Alan Steer made it clear that he did not agree with withholding a report from parents. He said:
If there has been an incident involving my child which has required restraint to be used, I would be fairly militant about the fact that I, as a parent, needed to know that. I accept that the example you gave could occur on rare occasions, but there are ways around that.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2009; c. 108, Q252.]

Nick Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Minister. She has made a compelling case for why parents need to be informed automatically, but there is also a compelling case in the small minority of cases that she refers to where the consequence of reporting the incident could be very serious for the childextremely serious. Is there not a compromise that can be reached where there is an automatic process for reporting? If a head teacher has concerns, could the reporting be made to someone in the social services department who may or may not know the parent? If they know the parent, that is dealt with. That could count as telling the parent. If they do not know the parent, it could trigger a case conference and initial inquiries to see whether it would be safe to tell the parent. In such circumstances, the child would be protected. It would be a pity if we passed the legislation and as a direct consequence a child dies.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remark. The requirement to inform parents is also subject to wider requirements to safeguard children, and the report to a parent need not come directly from the school. It could in some instances come through social services. Where a school is particularly concerned about a child protection issue, they should always bring in other support agencies. I think that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he needs. I referred previously to an incident a few years ago involving a six-year-old girl with special educational needs. That example alone shows the importance of reporting incidents to parents.

Nick Gibb: It is good to hear what the Minister has said, but my worry is that it is not in the Bill and would therefore not be on the statute book. I wonder what she has in mind. Obviously, there is a wider requirement to protect children in common law, and undoubtedly in statute somewhere, but it is not in this piece of legislation. Our concern is that a teacher or a lawyer looking at this will advise that the teacher or head teacher has to tell the parent, and there seems to be no leeway within the provision as regards telling the parent.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The legislation states:
The governing body...must ensure that a procedure is in place.
There will be guidance that backs that up. Our revised guidance will make it clear what it means in practical terms, given that there are the general obligations under the Children Act 1989 and the wider requirements to safeguard children. I am happy to confirm that we expect to put in that guidance the incidents in the particular cases that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
On amendment 94, our general position is not to specify a time scale for how long pupil documentation should be kept. The current pupil information regulations, which cover the range of information that schools keep on their pupils and which we are considering revising, do not set such a time scale. Similarly, our current guidance on use of force does not specify a time scale for keeping records, as we believe that such decisions are best taken locally.
The exception is where a record has been handed to the police. Our guidance recommends that in those circumstances, schools should retain the record until the member of staff involved has reached normal retirement age or for 10 years from the date of the allegation, in order to ensure that a proper record is retained in case criminal or other proceedings arise from the incident. We propose that the new overarching guidance on the use of force that we will issue to follow the Bill should continue to reflect that approach.
I recognise concerns that the record of an incident passed to the police for whatever reason may appear on a subsequent Criminal Records Bureau check, but if a teacher has misused the power and acted unlawfully, it is right that that should form part of their CRB disclosure. In deciding how long to keep records of such incidents, schools will also wish to bear in mind the time limits for bringing civil actions for damages. Where a person under 18 has suffered injury, the limitation period does not even begin to run until they reach the age of 18, so if schools destroy records three years after an incident, they may face difficulties if a claim is made subsequently.
In any case, schools will wish to maintain accurate records of their pupils progress for at least as long as they remain in education, and the use of force record is likely to be considered by most schools as forming part of that record. Schools may wish, for example, to monitor patterns of use of force over a number of years. They must be left to make their own decisions about how long to keep records of use of force. Many schools will have good reason to want to keep the records for longer than three years. With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that full response to the amendments, which raise serious issues. I am not totally convinced that it will work. She is saying that primary legislation is trumped by revised guidance, whose status is even less than that of statutory instruments. I worry that we are relying on guidance to provide a different interpretation of explicit legislation in new circumstances. It will work if the guidance is read, the school is well run, its staff have the guidance in front of them and all the teachers are aware of it. The concern is that that will not happen.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that proposed new section 85D(4) says:
In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the governing body must have regard to any guidance issued?

Nick Gibb: Yes, I do, but the trouble is that people are not lawyers out there. Teachers are teachers, bursars are bursars and head teachers are head teachers. This way may look easier because we are spending a lot of time ploughing through the Bill clause by clause, but it is just one Bill among many to which teachers must have access. Guidance is recommended in most clauses of education Bills.
The reality is that teachers do not sit at their desks with neatly filed guidance connected to each provision in legislation. A poor lawyer, or even an average lawyer, might not spot this point. Indeed, a teacher might not even ask a lawyer; they will work out in advance what they can and cannot do. A barrack-room lawyer view might arise that if a serious incident occurs involving physical restraint of a child, the parent must be told, and a jobsworth view might well emanate that it is better to do so regardless of the consequences.
The hon. Lady might be right. The matter might be so serious that head teachers will be cognisant of the guidance because the consequences of not knowing about it are so tremendous. However, the worry is that that might not happen. We should be legislating to produce the best possible piece of legislation. As the matter is serious, I cannot understand why it is not being put into the Bill, just in case what I am saying is right. Given that I am not the only onesenior trade unionists are saying it tooI wish that she would think again. I leave her with this thought. Rather than pressing the amendment to a Division, I urge her to give the issue a little thought between now and Report and to come back on Report with a small amendment, which we will endeavour to give a swift journey on to the statute book. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 233 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 234 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 235

Co-operation with a view to promoting good behaviour, etc.: England

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 235, page 138, leave out lines 5 and 6.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 371, in clause 235, page 138, line 6, at end insert
(c) the management committee of a school falling within section 19(2B) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) (pupil referral units)..

Nick Gibb: We are now on the fairly controversial clause 235 on school behaviour partnerships. The thing about such partnerships is that most schools are in themI forget the actual percentage, but I think that over 90 per cent. of schools are part of a behaviour partnership with other schools in their area. Most academies are in the same boat, because they want to co-operate in such matters with other schools, make common cause, spread best practice and help one another in dealing with the serious and growing problem of poor behaviour in our schools. Schools are happy to enter into such arrangements. But the problem comes when they are forced to enter into the arrangements by legislation; it is like passing a law saying, You should be my friend., which will not be a genuine friendship if that is its basisalthough I am sure that everyone in this Committee is very friendly, particularly after yesterday.

Siôn Simon: On behalf of everyone on this side of the Committee, I would like to say that we are all happy to be the hon. Gentlemans friends, even without primary legislation.

Nick Gibb: I am very grateful, and therefore I will withdraw that particular amendment that we will come on to laterit is obviously not necessary.
Schools should be encouraged, not forced, to form the partnerships. Amendment 84 would take out subsection (1)(b), essentially taking out academieswe will discuss the broader issue of voluntarism in partnership later in the debate. Dr. Daniel Moynihan, chairman of the Harris Federation, and a former principal of a very successful academy, said when he gave evidence:
For me the issue of school behaviour partnerships remains about voluntarism for academies. It is true that most schools are part of behaviour partnerships, but the kind they are in are quite different to the kind Sir Alan Steer mentions in his report. The behaviour partnerships that most schools are in are about sharing out hard to place pupils and managing moves for exclusions.
In this case, however, we are talking about much broader partnerships in which groups have the power to employ specialist staff together, have common behaviour management training, take on services in managing attendance, offer staff training and work with primary schools, so we could be looking at a bigger and potentially more bureaucratic process...We really feel that it is important that we have the choice of which schools we partner with, because partnerships per se will not improve anything: quality improves things.
He was not saying that he is against partnerships, but he was saying that
if we do not get that, academies and other schools should at least be able to determine who they partner with. I do not think that central or local government should say, Here is your partnership and this is how you should partner. I do not think that they are in the best position to do that.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 56, Q152 and 153.]
It would be helpful, if the Minister is not able to accept the amendment, if she provided some comfort to senior figures such as Dr. Moynihan, who has done so much to provide high-quality education in difficult parts of London. Can he be assured that he can form partnerships with schools that he chooses, and that they will not be chosen for him by local authorities or existing school behaviour partnerships? With those few words, I await the Ministers assurance on that point with anticipation.

David Laws: I would like to touch on amendments 371 and 84. Amendment 371 is pretty straightforward. It would add
the management committee of a school falling within section 19(2B) of the Education Act 1996...(pupil referral units)
to the categories that are considered relevant partners for the purpose of school behaviour partnerships. We would be interested to know whether the Minister envisages including pupil referral unitsor short stay schools, as they are to be knownin those partnerships.
On amendment 84, I probably would not say this if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole were here, because she would throttle me, but whenever I hear the word partnership in association with this Government, I tend to think that it is going to be some bureaucratic monstrosity that involves a lot of meddling, intervention, discussions and meetings for no obvious purpose. Therefore, I start with the type of scepticism that I suspect the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has about these organisations.
I heard the evidence given by Mr. Moynihan to the Committee on 3 March. He talked about his concern that school behaviour partnerships were going to become more onerous and bureaucratic. He also said that he believed that there should be an opt-in for schools and that there should not be a forced marriage or forced friendship, which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about.
I think I can satisfy my absent hon. Friend by putting it on the record that I am happy with the provision as it is, without amendment 84, subject to a couple of comments. The first reason I am happy is that most schools are already part of a school behaviour partnership, as the hon. Gentleman said. The provision will not be quite the imposition on schools that has been suggested and the figures are slightly higher than he indicated. According to the Library research note, 98 per cent. of maintained schools and 94 per cent. of academies are members of those partnerships.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

David Laws: I was saying that I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole would be happy with me because I feel comfortable supporting the Governments line on school behaviour partnerships and reflecting on the fact that most schools throughout the country seem to be in such partnerships. Indeed, the Bills economic impact assessment refers to the 55 schools that are not members of a partnership. That sounds like an even smaller number than I would have thought, based on a calculation of 2 per cent. of a stock of 23,500 schools. Is the economic impact assessment right to state that 55 schools are not members of a partnership? How many of those are academies? We are talking about a relatively small number of schools.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made a different argument that echoed comments made by the chief executive of the Harris Foundation: schools should be free to choose their friends, and we do not need to legislate and bully people into forming partnerships. The problem with that argument is that sometimes people do not want to be friends. It can be difficult for some people to make friendsI am feeling a little friendless right now, given that there is nobody else on my side of the Committee. However, I would like to deal with the Bognor challenge, so to speak, because it can sometimes be difficult to partner up, which is of concern, because many schools that will have problems finding partnersin relation to issues such as exclusionswill be those in the most deprived catchments with the largest exclusion problems.
Many schools will ask, Why on earth would I want to partner up with this school, which is excluding people left, right and centre, and has all sorts of problems? I do not want to take on all the children from those schools in this partnership. We could end up with a residue of a small number of schools left out of partnerships. Also, some schools will have to form partnerships with other schools that are not obvious fits. Therefore, I am not as bothered as the hon. Gentleman by the inclusion of academies and maintained schools in this provision.
The only area where I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman is in relation to the comments made by Daniel Moynihan in response to the question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, to whom we all send our sincere sympathies, following the sad update from the Minister. Daniel Moynihan was concerned that behaviour partnerships will be too detailed and prescriptive, and involve many other issues, such as buying in services, whereas when they were established, they were fairly loose and broad.
I understand how academies might fear that such a bureaucratic process could start to compromise the independence that they so value. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will be careful in developing the partnerships to ensure that they do not become too bureaucratic or place too onerous a set of duties not only on academies, but on all maintained schools, to which those issues are important? With that reassurance, I would feel much more comfortable with the provisions.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendment 84 would remove the duty to co-operate to improve behaviour and tackle persistent absence from academies, city technology colleges and the city college for the technology of the arts. The Government do not wish, in general, to make academies subject to detailed education legislation. We are committed to preserving the autonomy of academies to allow them to be innovative trailblazers in education, but some things are just too important for academies to be outside. We have debated one alreadychildrens trustsand behaviour and attendance partnerships are another.
Being involved in such a partnership allows academies to draw on the expertise of their partners in dealing with behaviour and attendance issues, commission a greater range of support services by doing so in conjunction with partners and work with other schools to find the most effective solutions for pupils with behaviour and attendance issues. Ninety-four per cent. of academies are already convinced of the benefits of partnership working and are members voluntarily.
However, for behaviour and attendance partnerships to work effectively, every secondary school in a local area must be involved. Refusal to co-operate by even one school can damage local partnership working, as it undermines the principle that all local children are the collective responsibility of all schools and childrens services in the local area, not just the school that they happen to attend. However, I can confirm to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that schools will not be told exactly which other schools to work with, but can make their own collaborative arrangements.
Although 94 per cent. of academies and 98 per cent. of maintained secondary schools are already working in partnerships voluntarily, the extent to which partnerships work effectively varies. The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about the 55 schoolsthat came from figures for 2007. I can confirm that eight of them were academies.
The legislation requires schools to have regard to DCSF guidance on behaviour and attendance partnerships. It reinforces and secures the strength of partnerships, and increases the extent to which good practice is embedded.
For the same reasons, it is equally important that all pupil referral units are members of behaviour and attendance partnerships. There are further reasons why it is crucial that pupil referral units are full members. I use the phrase pupil referral units because we have not yet passed legislation to change the name to short-stay schools. One of the aims of behaviour and attendance partnerships is to build stronger links between pupil referral units and other schools, so that the expertise on behaviour that exists in many pupil referral units can be more easily shared, and joint decision making about where a pupil should be placed can occur.
Therefore, I am sympathetic to the motivation behind amendment 371, which would include pupil referral units in the duty to co-operate in the Bill, but our preference is to place the duty in clause 235 on pupil referral units, using regulations made under schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996.
The legal identity of pupil referral units is different from that of all other schools maintained by a local authority. They are also managed differently, through management committees with local authority involvement, rather than governing bodies. Those practical differences mean that, usually, new legislative obligations on schools have been applied to pupil referral units through secondary legislation. We wish to maintain that legislative consistency.
Applying the duty to pupil referral units through regulations will allow us to tailor the exact details of the requirements to reflect the specific features of pupil referral units, which are different from other schools. For example, we may wish to tailor the duty on pupil referral units so that they have to make arrangements with a maintained school or academy, rather than with another pupil referral unit only. We also want to ensure that primary pupil referral units are not covered by the statutory duty, in the same way that primary maintained schools are not.
In practice, pupil referral units will be full members of behaviour and attendance partnerships in the same way as any maintained secondary school, academy, city technology college or the city college for the technology of the arts, but we will bring that about through regulations, rather than primary legislation. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendments to the vote.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for that response and very reassured by what she said about amendment 371. I thought for a moment that she would concede something to me during proceedings on the Bill, and that I would have some amendment or part of legislation to look back on in old age. As ever, that was snatched from me and the amendment transferred across to regulations, but I feel that I may have to accept that modest piece of good news and not press my amendment any further.

Nick Gibb: I am half pleased and half disappointed. The Minister said that, in general, the Government do not want to subject academies to general education legislation, which is encouraging to hear but does not tally with what has been happening since the Secretary of State took over as Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. There have been significant changes to the autonomy of academies in respect of the national curriculum and the involvement of local authorities in the running of academies, and this legislation includes two more changes that reduce their autonomythis issue and childrens trusts.
The Minister is being disingenuous when she says that those issues are of such paramount importance that some of the autonomy of academies must be taken away. That is part of a trend in recent years. The Government are not committed to the success of autonomy and successful academies, so they are quite happy to chip away at those freedoms whenever it suits them. That is why I am disappointed.
I was pleased, however, when the Minister said that schools will not be told with whom to work or form partnershipsshe is not going infringe the Bognor principle that friendships should not be forced. I am sure that that will also please the academy movement. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 235, page 138, line 7, leave out must and insert may.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 258, in clause 235, page 138, line 12, after State, insert
, with any such guidance ensuring that relevant partners shall not be forced into partnerships against the wishes of the governing bodies of those relevant partners..
Amendment 262, in clause 235, page 138, line 12, at end insert
(3A) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), a relevant partner may only enter an arrangement with another relevant partner if the governing bodies of both relevant partners approve the arrangement..

Nick Gibb: This debate will be almost the same as the one that we have just had, except it applies to not only academies but all schools. The amendments seek to bring about a little bit more voluntarism in the behaviour partnership arrangements.
Amendment 85 would mean that a relevant partner may rather than must
make arrangements with at least one other partner in their area to co-operate with each other with a view to...promoting good behaviour and discipline on the part of pupils.
That fits with what the Association of School and College Leaders has said. The association welcomes the Bill, but the end of its briefing says that it should be clear that schools will form such partnerships by themselves, and that particular patterns of partnership should not be imposed from outside by either the local authority or by the Government or any of their agencies. The ASCL will be encouraged by what the Minister said in the debate on the last group of amendments, and because there is no intention to have local authorities select the collaborative arrangements into which a school can enter.
Similarly, amendment 258 means that any such guidance from the Minister should ensure that
relevant partners shall not be forced into partnerships against the wishes of the governing bodies of those relevant partners.
Again, that would mean that unless the governing body of a school wishes to enter a partnership with another school, it should not happen, and the Minister has confirmed that.
It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister were to confirm what would happen if Mr. Nomates cannot find a partner, which the hon. Member for Yeovil alluded to. Will the local authority force the school to partner another school in the area?
Finally, amendment 262 states that
For the purposes of subsection...(2)...a relevant partner may only enter an arrangement with another relevant partner if the governing bodies of both relevant partners approve the arrangement.
That is another way of expressing the view that two schools should enjoy mutual attraction rather than be forced into a shotgun marriage, if that is the Governments intention. More reassurance on those points from the Minister would be very welcome.

Mary Creagh: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Chope, on this bright morning.
I have some concerns about the proposed amendments. They could weaken the provisions and create a Johnny Nomates school, as the hon. Gentleman put it. I should like to press the Minister on those issues. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he would think about the need for accountability and reporting requirements for the partnerships. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I may disagree on what weight should be given to knowledge versus knowledge skills, understanding, ability and knowledge in practice. The amendments and the clause consider the howhow we teach in schools and the framework in which learning happens.
It is absolutely clear that truancy and poor behaviour by a tiny minority of individualsand, in some cases, their parentscan totally destroy learning for all other classroom learners. Consistent lateness, poor attendance and poor behaviour can destroy the fabric of a school. I am concerned about the amendments, as I think that they would give certain schools the chance to decide that they are a bit too grand, too special, too clever or too good to partner other schools. That is a concern, because I do not want to end up with a self-selecting market for school behaviour partnerships.
Wakefield City high school, a high-performing state secondary school in my constituencyit is not an academy or anything like that, just an ordinary comprehensive schoolis one of the top five highest value-added schools in the country, and it is a specialist school for maths. The head, Mr. Alan Yellup, provides fantastic leadership. I had a letter from him about two weeks ago that discussed the hundreds of schools that he has worked with. As the head of a leading school, he is happy to share his expertise across the sector, the county and the country. It is important that good practice in beacon schools such as that, whether they have a subject or a behavioural specialism, is rolled out across the sector, and I am against any amendment that would weaken that.
How does the Minister think we can take across some of the interesting innovations that have arisen from such partnerships? How can we model the outstanding, so that it becomes standard practice across the sector? How can we roll out strong schools supporting weaker schools to attain zero tolerance of poor behaviour and truancy?
I was pleased to see the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil on pupil referral units, which have a specialist role to play in partnerships. They often have an important role to play in the continuity of education, if a child is going back and forthhopefully not more than once or twicebetween their main school and the pupil referral unit, or whatever the new name is for them.

Jim Knight: Short stay schools.

Mary Creagh: Thank you. My brain is not functioning quite as quickly as it was this time yesterday morning. I am reassured by what the Minister has said about introducing regulations to make sure that they are included. I just wanted to press her on accountability and the reporting of crimes.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendment 85 would negate the new duty on all maintained secondary schools, academies, city technology colleges and city technology colleges of the arts to be members of school behaviour and attendance partnerships. As I have said, school behaviour and attendance partnerships are designed to support and improve outcomes for pupils with behaviour and attendance issues, who are some of the most vulnerable pupils in our schools, so it is important that partnership working is as effective as it can be. Partnership working on behaviour and attendance is also designed to improve low-level disruption across the whole school and thus has a positive impact on all pupils.
It is important that partnership working is made a statutory requirement in order to reinforce the strength of partnerships and ensure that good practice is further embedded by making a statutory requirement for schools to have regard to the DCSF guidance on partnership working. Such legislation is necessary, because in order for partnership working to be truly effective, all secondary schools must be involved. Refusal by even one school can have a detrimental impact on partnership working locally, as the partnership then cannot represent the needs of children across local secondary schools and the principle of collective responsibility at the centre of partnership work is undermined. Schools need to be confident of their partners commitment and confident that partnership working is a long-term approach. The legislation shows that the Government are committed to that approach in the long term and ensures that schools are also committed.
Amendments 258 and 262 appear to be motivated by the same concern: a desire to ensure that schools can choose the other schools with which to enter into partnership. Once again, I reassure hon. Members that that is already the case. The clause merely places a duty to make arrangements with at least one other relevant body. The Government do not wish to prescribe the exact composition of individual partnerships, which should reflect and respond to local circumstances. Schools will not be told exactly which other schools to work with, and they will decide that in collaboration with the other schools in their area and the local authority.
Our current guidance suggests that the local authority should play a role in facilitating links between schools and promoting partnership working, and we would expect the local authority to support schools having any problems arranging who is to be in which partnership. We will continue to recommend that the local authority plays that support role when the guidance is redrafted, as it becomes statutory. Ofsted also assesses schools on how well they work in partnership with other organisations, and the new school report card will include information on partnership working.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that the local authoritys role in facilitating and supporting the arrangements will not, in practice, become enforcing them?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have no intention of coercing schools into partnerships; local authorities will have other levers. They will be able to direct funding to school partnerships and, if they feel that such partnerships are not operating as they should, to withhold it. Furthermore, Ofsted will have the power through inspection to see how well schools are doing on partnership working. Local authorities have no powers to force schools into partnerships.

Nick Gibb: The Minister hinted at funding. Will a school lose significant sums of money for dealing with behavioural problems, if it does not enter into partnership with a school of the local authoritys choosing?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We do not expect local authorities to undertake this measure coercively. There is no point having a partnership if both partners do not want to be partners. Local authorities will want to collaborate with schools to encourage them.

Mary Creagh: Is not the point, however, that schools that do not want to become partnered are often those with the biggest problemswhere the head teacher may be isolated, defensive and in need of greatest help? The Bill strikes the appropriate balance between encouragement and saying, Its not good enough just to put your head in your hands, hide under your desk and say, Itll all get better with time, or, These are difficult children.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I agree, which is why I do not support amendments 258 and 262, because they would allow a school to refuse to enter into arrangements with another school, which would undermine the clause. I must reiterate to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that local authorities will not give funding to the partnership, but they will continue to fund schools individually.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned accountability, which is really important. There are many ways in which we could strengthen the accountability regime, and one option is an annual report to the childrens trust. That is an interesting way of extending accountability, and it may meet my hon. Friends requirements. I shall reflect on it, and we may return to it after further consideration.
Although the exact composition of local partnerships will be locally determined, as I have outlined, the crucial point is that every secondary school should be in a behaviour and attendance partnership with at least one other school. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for again providing some reassurance that schools will not have their partners chosen for them by local authorities. It is good to have that on the record. I was slightly alarmed when talk of funding crept into our discussion about voluntary arrangements, and the idea that support from local authorities would carry the stick that behaviour partnership funding might disappear if schools did not accept the support with the alacrity that the local authority expected. I was reassured by the Ministers response to my concern, however, when she said that she does not want local authorities to engage in coercion and that any partnership that is not entered into voluntarily will not work. In the light of those helpful words, to which I hope all local authorities will adhere, I shall not press the amendment. I hope that any guidance the Minister issues will be in that spirit. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 288, in clause 235, page 138, line 10, at end insert
( ) reduce exclusion rates for pupils with special educational needs..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 80, in clause 235, page 138, line 10, at end insert
(2A) In performing their duties under this section, relevant partners must seek to ensure that all pupils are able to work, study and learn in a safe, secure and ordered environment..

David Laws: The amendment would add to clause 235(2), which specifies the details concerning relevant partners making arrangements to co-operate with other relevant partners regarding specified subjects. It adds to existing concerns about the promotion of good behaviour and discipline by pupils and about reducing the persistent absence of pupils. The amendment would add a new requirement to consider the reduction of exclusion rates of pupils with special educational needs, and would complement the other paragraphs in that subsection.
It is a concern in many schools in many parts of the country that we have such high exclusion rates of youngsters with special educational needs. We must look not only at what we can do to reduce those rates, but at how schools can co-operate, particularly where there is good practice to draw on or where staff have expert knowledge of particular areas of special educational needs within partnerships to reduce exclusion rates. With this probing amendment, we invite the Minister to consider whether to add this consideration to the Bill, and to explain how the existing duties will relate to youngsters with special educational needs.
I cannot help thinking that there is some trick to amendment 80, because it seems to fail the test of putting a not in front of everything. It states:
In performing their duties under this section, relevant partners must seek to ensure that all pupils are able to work, study and learn in a safe, secure and ordered environment.
That seems difficult to oppose, but I suspect that the ingenious hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has something lurking in there that he will raise in a moment, so I look forward to hearing from him.

Nick Gibb: The lurking element is that we want to make schools into safe and happy places for pupils and children. We need to ensure that when behaviour partnerships are entered into, the desire to find new places for children who have been excluded does not jeopardise the safety, security and orderliness of any school to which they are sent. That must be the overriding aim when partnerships are entered into. It is almost tautologous, as the hon. Gentleman has hinted, to have that as an overriding aim, but I am worried that the overriding aim in some partnerships might be to find places in mainstream schools for children whose behavioural problems are such that they ought to be not in mainstream schools, but in high-quality, alternative education that will help with their behavioural problems. I shall return to those issues when we debate the next clause.
The behaviour partnership should not lose sight of the fact that its aim is to produce the kind of ordered environment in schools that, I am afraid, is increasingly the exception rather than the rule. Children are suffering from bullying at too high a level in our schools today, and there is too much low-level disruption across the state sector school estate. That is increasingly becoming the single biggest problem facing education today.
I know that Ministers are sincere in believing that school behavioural partnerships are an answer to the problem, which they may well be, especially if the partnerships are voluntary. However, they might just be a revolving-door attempt to shuffle around the system children who have severe behavioural problems that need to be addressed by professionals with experience and expertise in helping children tackle and deal with behavioural problems that are almost certainly not their fault. If a child has behavioural problems, many people are to blametheir parents, society, the police for not patrolling the streets and keeping order and, possibly, the school environment.
One person who is not responsible for behaviour is the child. Children are the creatures of us all. They are the creatures of the parents, of the school and of society. There are children with behavioural problems who need help. Simply shunting them off to another mainstream school that also has behavioural problems will not help the child, and the child being at the school will not contribute to the schools effectiveness. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that it remains the prime aim of all schools to create a safe, happy and secure environment when dealing with behavioural problems and not to allow other aims to supersede that. I look forward to hearing the Ministers response.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I appreciate the sentiment behind amendment 80. It is important that all pupils can learn in a safe, secure and well-ordered environment. However, the clause already requires schools to co-operate to promote good behaviour and discipline on the part of pupils, and the intended outcome of such co-operation is just thatmaking schools safe and orderly places in which pupils can learn.
Schools are already legally responsible for the safety and well-being of their pupils. Head teachers also have a clear statutory power to exclude pupils, when they think that it is necessary. We have repeatedly stated that we fully support heads who make the difficult decision to exclude. Behaviour and attendance partnerships aim to support head teachers in developing strategies that reduce the need for exclusion. When there is still a need, we fully support the right of the head to exclude.
School behaviour and attendance partnerships help schools to support those pupils who have behaviour or attendance issues, including through early intervention, to address problems before they escalate. The intended outcome of behaviour and attendance partnership working is that, both as a consequence of targeted work, and as a result of other wider strategies of partnership working, low-level disruption and behaviour issues throughout schools are reduced.
Amendment 288 would make a reduction in exclusions among pupils with special educational needs one of the key areas with which schools must co-operate. I am sympathetic to its aim, but it is not necessary. In our current guidance on school behaviour and attendance partnerships, we make it clear that we expect a reduction in the need for permanent exclusions to be a key outcome of partnership working. That is an expected outcome of co-operating with a view to promoting good behaviour and discipline on the part of pupils.

Nick Gibb: Does the Minister understand that we cannot have in guidance the ruling that there shall be fewer permanent exclusions? If we make that a policy, it will be achieved, but it will not necessarily improve behaviour in a school. It will simply be the case that head teachers are deterred by such guidance from excluding permanently children, who should be excluded permanently and receiving help for their problems. It is no good expecting such guidance to be effective. It will simply compound the problem both for the child by their not receiving help and the school by having a disruptive child in the school and not receiving the help that they need.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The whole point of the partnership is to enable the strategy to get the early intervention work in place and to learn from good practice in other schools, so that permanent exclusion is not the first resort, but the last resort. We also state in guidance that we expect schools to place emphasis on reducing the differential rate for exclusions among black or minority ethnic pupils and pupils with special educational needs.

David Laws: Does the Minister agree that there are reasons to be concerned by what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said about targets to drive down exclusions, regardless of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing? However, many schools are using new practices, such as keeping children who are misbehaving in the school but teaching them on Saturdays and in the evenings until they are ready to come back. Sometimes that is a better alternative than excluding permanently. The Government should be encouraging that, without getting into the sort of rigid approach that the hon. Gentleman is worried about.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There are many examples of good practice, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Working in a partnership, those examples of good practice can be shared, particularly on outcomes. On another point, for the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I did not say that we expect a reduction in permanent exclusions to be the outcome; I said that we expect a reduction in the need for permanent exclusions to be a key outcome of partnership working.
I reiterate that our guidance expects schools to place emphasis on reducing the differential rate for exclusions among black and minority ethnic pupils and pupils with special educational needs. The current guidance will be redrafted, as it becomes statutory, but it will continue to include those expectations. Reducing exclusions among pupils with special educational needs will therefore be a key focus of partnership working. It is not necessary to state that in the Bill, as it would give a message that SEN exclusions are more of a priority than other issues, and would suggest that the issue has to be a priority even for partnerships that have a low rate of SEN exclusions. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to the Ministers response, and I was disappointed by it. The semantics about the need for permanent exclusions to be reduced is difficult to distinguish from almost-guidance saying that schools should reduce their permanent exclusions. That is certainly true on a quick reading, and given the volume of reading that heads are required to undertake by the Government, that could well happen.
I was interested in the observation by the hon. Member for Yeovil that innovative solutions such as Saturday morning schools or exclusion within the school campus are very effective. I agree that all such methods should be adopted. There are all sorts of other things that happen in comprehensive schools that I have visited around the country, such as senior members of staff patrolling the corridors with mobile phonesevery class teacher has one, so that if there is any disruption in the class, such as a swear word or speaking out of turn, the senior teacher comes along and takes the kid away. In such schools, the procedure is remorseless and is always implemented when a child steps out of line.
In schools that I have visited where that happens, the behaviour is immaculate. No remedial measures are needed for such schools. However, what helps those schools have the authority to deliver such innovative solutions is the ultimate deterrent, that the head teacher will exclude pupils who are persistent disruptors and persistently misbehave, notwithstanding all those effective and innovative procedures being in place. If we make it difficult to exclude, we remove the deterrent and make any innovative approach to behaviour policies ineffective, because the children know that there is no ultimate deterrent that can force them to stay in detention or to attend school on a Saturday morning.
I was disappointed, but we have had a discussion, and I do not intend to press amendment 80 to a Division.

David Laws: I was more satisfied by the answers, both to my amendment and to that of the hon. Gentleman. I understand the hon. Gentlemans concerns about policy, particularly policy going back a few years perhaps, when there was an obsession with reducing the number of exclusions. There was perhaps perceived to be an obsession with massaging down the figures to demonstrate that the Government were delivering better conduct in schools. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that schools must have the power, when behaviour is completely unacceptable or when it is clear that a youngster is not going to change their behaviour, to exclude permanently. Without that sanction, which will hopefully not be used frequently, it is impossible to control a school properly and to have the respect of youngsters for the discipline in that school.
The hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with many independent and private schools, as he is with the many maintained schools that he visits. In those independent schools, he will have seen the ability to exclude and that a more robust position is sometimes adopted in relation to permanent exclusion, although perhaps that is just a perception.
The difference and problem in the maintained sector is that more youngsters are at risk of being excluded. Also, the responsibility to seek to educate those youngsters still falls on the local family of schools. Although I am the first to say that the power to permanently exclude must be used without some sort of political threat hanging over it, I am also aware from my constituencyand from many other parts of the countryof head teachers who are sometimes overly keen to exclude in order to make sure that the composition of their intake is more favourable. I know that there are head teachers who regard some of their colleagues as having a somewhat irresponsible approach to exclusions, although that is a small minority of head teachers.
As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, lots of head teachers are beginning to use original, unusual and innovative methodsin fact, some of them are not that innovative, for example, keeping youngsters on after school or bringing them in on Saturdays. Those methods essentially mean that the youngsters are out of their class and are not creating disruptionfor example, they might be excluded, but within the school during the day, or they might be forced to come back in the evenings or on Saturdays. I have spoken to a number of heads, including those in London, who use such mechanisms, and to my great surprise, they are getting those excluded pupils back in at those times and are often having success in dealing with them.
At the same time, I have also talked to a lot of head teachersor whatever they are calledin pupil referral units, which we will discuss in a moment. They talked to me about the problems when students get permanently excluded and end up in PRUs, which often do not do a very good job. Such pupils find it difficult to get back into maintained schools and they do not always qualify for special schoolssome of them maybe should, but some probably should not and would not. There has been a problem in the past with some of those youngsters, and we should have an expectation that we can do better for the reasons that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave, which were rather extreme for a Conservative. I think that he actually said that young people were not really responsible for their own behavioural problems and that it was the responsibility of the society in which they have grown up and of their parents and so on. I agree that there is a strong link there, but even I would not have gone quite as far as he did in suggesting that youngsters have no responsibility at all.

Nick Gibb: Of course they have responsibility, but they are not to blame for their position. If a child can be taken away from all the things that have damaged them and put somewhere elsefor example, with the hon. Gentlemans family when he was being brought upthey would not have such problems.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is clearly on the ultra-progressive wing of the Conservative party. I am only relieved that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is not here, because he would be choking on whatever dinner he had been eating in the small hours if he had heard that. I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. Gentleman recognises so clearly the connection between family, economic circumstances, aspirations, school results and behaviour.
The hon. Gentleman should be a little more positive about the possibility of schools doing better than they have done in the past. Permanent exclusions should be available, and they should not be seen as a last resort or to be tied up in bureaucracy. However, there are many other ways in which schools should be working to keep youngsters engaged and included. The policies of many schools of simply excluding pupils and then incorporating them back into a class have been something of a disaster.
On amendment 288, which I moved, I am satisfied with the Ministers response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 338, in clause 235, page 138, line 10, at end insert
(2A) In performing their duties under this section, relevant partners must require as a condition of admission to the school, the agreement of home-school contracts between the school and each pupil, establishing the required levels of compliance with the rules of the school..
The amendment would introduce home-school contracts into clause 235. It is an important part of Conservative party policy to have home-school contracts in place as a condition of admission, but it is something that the Government seem intent on resisting. If we have the home-school contract signed after admission, they really are pointless and people regard them as not being worth the paper that they are written on. However, if such contracts are a condition of admission, people know that their childs stay at that school is conditional on fulfilling the promises made in the contract, and so the contract becomes something very real.
The argument that Ministers make is that some parents are so hopeless that they refuse to sign and that the people who suffer in those circumstances are the children rather than the parents. Therefore, Ministers argue, it is unfair to discriminate against those children in those circumstances. However, I made the point earlier in our deliberations that if that is the caseif a parent is not saying to the school that they will ensure that their children obey the school rulesthat is indicative of something very serious in the way in which that parent is raising that child. It is perhaps something that the social services should be aware of, but it certainly should not be a reason for letting that child into the school. It may be that no school will have that child while their parent refuses to sign the agreement, in which case there is a very serious problem that needs to be tackled. Such issues should be tackled early, because they are a clear sign that poor parenting is going on, which needs to be tackled straight away.
I strongly believe that home-school contracts should be a condition of entry into a school, and they would be effective if they were pursued in that way. They are one of a range of measures that we will introduce, if we win the general election next year, to focus on raising standards of behaviour in our schools. Poor behaviour is a serious problem that requires serious and radical measures. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about these proposals.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: God help the poor children whose parents feel unable to sign a home-school contract in the unlikely event that the hon. Gentlemans party wins a general election next year. It is totally wrong to penalise children whose parents refuse to sign an agreement. We think that such agreements are a powerful tool to help parents, schools and children to work together to improve outcomes for a particular child. However, I cannot accept the argument that some children should be refused entry to a school because consensus cannot be reached between home and school about the content of a home-school agreement.
The home-school agreement is not a contract in the legal sense, and we do not believe that it should be. It is a statement of shared objectives between home and school, setting out the expectations and responsibilities of each party. It is an opportunity for the parents to discuss the schools policies and their role in supporting their child as a member of the school. The agreement should be the outcome of productive and supportive discussions between home and school, and not something that is forced on parents involuntarily.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, because I cannot support it.

Nick Gibb: This issue clearly divides the parties, and I think that it is an issue that it is not for this Committee to vote on, not even later in our deliberationsperhaps we will cover the matter then, but it is really an issue for a general election. I think that the public will side with us on this issue, regarding our party as one that is serious about tackling poor behaviour.
I repeat again the point that I made when I introduced the amendment, that if there are parents out there who refuse to sign these home-school contracts, knowing full well that, as a consequence, their child will not get into a particular school or indeed any local school, that is a sign that there is something seriously wrong with their parenting. The Minister said, God help the child; I think that such an action is an indication that that child needs help and support with their home life.
We will return to that issue later in the proceedings and as we approach a general election. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 304, in clause 235, page 138, line 12, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

Clause 235, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: It is apparent to me, as Chairman, that there is abundant evidence that time for rest and refreshment leads to a higher quality of debate, greater efficiency and effectiveness, and also a better humour in the Committee. Therefore I intend to suspend the sitting for half an hour and we will reconvene at 11.10 am.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming

Clause 236

Short stay schools: miscellaneous

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 236, page 138, line 28, leave out short stay school and insert school for alternative education.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 98, in clause 236, page 138, line 28, leave out short stay school and insert prospect school.

Nick Gibb: These simple amendments challenge the Governments choice on the new name for pupil referral units. Amendment 97 would delete the phrase short stay school and insert the more prosaic school for alternative education. Amendment 98 would replace short stay school with prospect school, which is the previous name dreamt up by the Government. It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the choice of that name, which must have taken place in the Department over several months. The name was changed relatively late in the day from prospect school, which appears in the Government documents.

David Laws: I thought we had already received an explanation of that; perhaps it was only in our briefing from the Minister and others. Was the hon. Gentleman not told that prospect school was the brand name of some other school organisation or school? Was that not the Ministers concern?

Nick Gibb: I do not recall that, but it will be interesting to see whether the Minister makes that point. There is a genuine policy concern about the phrase short stay school and it comes from the Association of School and College Leaders:
Our only comment on the proposed renaming of pupil referral units to short stay schools is to recall Government reassurance that no school should be required to take a pupil who is not ready to return from permanent exclusion.
The phrase short stay implies that stays at such schools will last for just a matter of months, and certainly less than a year. It implies that the pupil will return to a mainstream school regardless of whether their behaviour has improved.
We must ensure that pupil referral units or short stay schools become high-quality institutions staffed by teachers with a great deal of experience in helping children with behavioural problems. They must be trained and experienced in this field because PRUs have been one of the weakest parts of the state education system. A significant number have been or remain in special measures.
In my constituency, two pupil referral units or special schools for children with behavioural problems have had notices to improve or have been in special measures. On visiting one in the period running up to special measures, I was dismayed by the quality of education. It must be a focus of Government policy to improve the quality of schools for alternative education. They must provide help and education for children who have behavioural problems.
As I said in an earlier debate, my view is that children are not responsible for the way they are. When they become adults, they are responsible for the way they become. When they are children, they are children. If they have behavioural problems, they must be helped to tackle them. For many children, the best setting is a smaller one with teachers who are particularly well trained in helping children with such problems.
It would be helpful if the Minister addressed the concern of the ASCL and said that there will not be an expectation of children being sent back to mainstream school regardless of whether their behaviour has improved. It does not matter whether it is the school that they came from or another one within the behavioural partnership; children should not be sent back before their behaviour has been sorted out. Will she also explain the history behind the decision to rename PRUs as short stay schools?

David Laws: There appears to be a less serious point and a serious point lurking among the amendments. I will start with what I consider the less serious point, which is the name of these institutions.
I am getting increasingly worried about the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Previously, there was an intriguing balance on the Conservative Benches between the progressive Conservativethe hon. Gentlemanand the less progressive hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who perhaps represents the less liberal wing of the Conservative party. I am sure he will not mind us saying that in his absence.
Since the hon. Gentleman left us, we appear to be seeing the ultra-modernising tendencies of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who has come forward with some extraordinary suggestions for renaming pupil referral units and short stay schools. I am surprised at the suggestion to call them schools for alternative education, as that sounds like the sort of left-wing, peacenik, lovey-dovey drug-smoking stuff that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings would be violently opposed to. I am horrified by the thought that he might be reading this assiduously at his breakfast table, or over a long dinner in a couple of days time. I hope he has nothing in his mouth when he reads the suggestions that are being made.
I imagined that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton might have thought of something more consistent with his own principles: phonic recovery schools, perhaps, or discipline schools or short, sharp shock schoolssomething of that kind. He has come up with an odd name, but we must wait for the Minister to confirm why prospect school was turned down.
I am not sure that I particularly care what the name iswhat is important is what happens inside those institutionsbut I welcome the fact that, whatever else, these institutions will be called something school. The pupil referral units are part of the same gobbledegook of education speak, and perhaps much else, whereby the name obscures what is going on, rather than shedding light on it. When I was first elected MP for the Yeovil constituency, I heard about my local pupil referral unit and was not clear about what it was there to do. Transparency in such matters is important.
There is a more important point, which I will touch on now. I will not return to it during the clause stand part debate. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton also referred to the fact that these schoolswhatever they are calledhave been seriously underperforming for many years. That has been confirmed by the Ofsted reports. It is long overdue for the Government to treat these schools as a higher priority, and to ensure that youngsters are not encouraged to be in them for a long period and that there are good connections with other mainstream schools, as the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families mentioned. We should not write off the youngsters in these institutions. What matters is not the name, but what they do, and how they help youngsters to recover from the chaotic circumstances that they were often in when they entered these institutions.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendments 97 and 98 would rename pupil referral units schools for alternative education and prospect schools rather than short stay schools. In our White Paper, we stated our intention to rename pupil referral units. We asked for suggestions for the new name and received more than 100. We also asked for suggestions from the ministerial stakeholder group on behaviour and attendance and the National Organisation for Pupil Referral Units. The name short stay school was chosen because it includes the word school, thus emphasising similarity with the mainstream, rather than differences. Short stay offers a broadly accurate and neutral description of what those schools do differently from other schools.
I appreciate that, in some cases, pupils may spend an extended period in a pupil referral unit. Examples of that might include pupils at key stage 4, for whom it makes sense to do their exams and complete their schooling in a pupil referral unit, or pupils with long-term medical needs. We expect placements to be short term in the majority of cases.
One clear message that we received from many consultation respondents was that they did not want the new name for pupil referral units to include words such as centre or alternative, which they felt emphasised difference from the mainstream and obscured the fact that the units are schools and the main focus is on teaching and learning.

Siôn Simon: Is my hon. Friend saying that they are to be called short stay schools because they are schools in which pupils will ideally stay for a short time?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is what it says on the tin. Prospect school was suggested in the consultation process. We thought that it was a good suggestion and investigated it further, but, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, four schools in England already use prospect in their titles. After consulting with those schools, we decided that using the word could lead to confusion in the areas where the schools are placed.
Changing the name of PRUs in legislation makes an important statement, which sends a clear message that the Government are deeply committed to bringing about a step change in the quality of alternative provision. The name change marks a positive new beginning for the sector and sheds the baggage of negative attitudes that have grown up around the term pupil referral unit. As I have just said to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, short stay school is the most appropriate name. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I take on board the Ministers point about wanting the institutions to sound as similar as possible to mainstream schools, so I agree that school should remain in the title. My progressive title also had school in itschool for alternative education. I am intrigued that there seems to be a move among some schools to cease calling themselves schools and to use the phrase learning centre. Let us hope that that phase and fad will cease and school remains the title of all schools, not least so they remain consistent with the new short stay schools being created.
I hope that we see improved quality in this sector of education, because it is important that children in those institutions get an education, as well as have their behavioural problems addressed. We have had a short and fairly interesting debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 236 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 237

Information about planned and actual expenditure

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 237, page 139, line 14, at end insert
(1A) The Secretary of State may direct a local authority in England that is a partner in a Local Education Partnership (LEP) to provide information about the acoustic quality of schools to be built or refurbished by that LEP..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 289, in clause 237, page 139, line 14, at end insert
, including expenditure on pupils with special educational needs..

Nick Gibb: Clause 237 is about information about planned and actual expenditure. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can direct a local authority to provide information about its planned and actual expenditure in connection with education and childrens services. Amendment 78 would add a new subsection. The point that it contains may seem to be an obscure one to bring to our deliberations, but the amendment raises a specific concern that reflects wider concerns about some of the architecture and buildings that have come out of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Some people have termed it Building Schools for the Sixties, because a lot of the architecture is designed to reflect an approach to education that is progressive in the pejorative sense.

David Laws: Alternative.

Nick Gibb: Well, I use progressive there as a pejorative term, rather than the benign term it usually is when I use it. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not convey any of that to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
There is genuine concern about some of the architecture being used. The National Deaf Childrens Society has raised particular concerns with me about the acoustics in some of the new buildings. It said in its briefing to the Committee that open-plan teaching spaces were being promoted without proper consideration of how to ensure high-quality acoustics in such spaces, which is a real concern for deaf or hearing-impaired children, and we need to address it.
Light is also an issue. Several years ago, Sig Prais of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research did an interesting study on the architecture of schools in Switzerland. He concluded that some of the old-fashioned Victorian buildings with high ceilings and ample window space were the best environments in which children could learn, rather than some of the buildings that were thrown up in the 1960s with flat roofs, low ceilings and fluorescent lighting, which is very damaging for children.
I hope that this probing amendment will trigger the Government and those involved in the architecture of schools looking at the specific case of the acoustics of classrooms in new-build schools. Moreover, they should use that as an instance in the wider issue of architecture so that we have an evidence-based approach to school building and design, as well as an evidence-based approach to education policy more generally. I look forward to the Ministers response.

David Laws: Turning first to amendment 78, I have some sympathy with the concerns about building design. In particular, I mentioned yesterdayor some time this morninga Policy Exchange report on the school systems in Sweden, the United States and England. I recommend that the Minister read it when he returns home to South Dorset later today.
The report criticises some of the developments in relation to the academies building programme and claimsI suspect that this is accurate, but I am happy to take an intervention if it is notthat the flexibility and freedom given to sponsors on the design of their buildings has been eroded over the past few years. There has been a greater tendency to go for a standard build, often excluding the sponsors from direct involvement in shaping the buildings that they are in. I understand that that may be motivated by desire to keep down the cost of some of those projects. Some academy projects have become quite expensive, but that might also relate to the particular sites involved.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that one of the risks of the Governments huge school-building projectI dare not touch on the college-building projects at the current timeis that we could build a lot of the same types of building in a very short period. If we get the design of those buildings wrong, we will end up repenting at leisure over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We will then find that we have to spend huge sums to fix all those things.
That suggests that we should be very thoughtful about the design characteristics of schools, including in respect of the details in amendment 78. Moreover, it cautions us against having some sort of blueprint that is in fashion at one point and rolling it out everywhere until it is discovered to be the wrong model and replaced everywhere by something else. A certain variety and experimentation are probably a safeguard against getting everything wrong at the same time.
Amendment 289 is also probing and designed to explore issues relating to expenditure on people with special educational needs. As has been pointed out, clause 237 says:
The Secretary of State may direct a local authority in England to provide information about its planned and actual expenditure in connection with
(a) its education functions;
(b)its childrens services functions.
The amendment would add a third category to the requirement in subsection (1)(b),
expenditure on pupils with special educational needs.
Its purpose will probably be obvious to the Minister.
Parents with children who have special educational needs frequently report back concerns about the lack of transparency and of budget that schools and local authorities have for special educational needs. They are concerned about how the money is allocated, which often undermines confidence in the authority and in the ability of the parents to secure the education that they believe their children need, particularly to overcome SEN problems.
A duty to provide information about SEN expenditure would be one small step in addressing the lack of confidence in local authorities and it would help to enable parents to hold their local authorities to account and to ask questions about existing provision in the education budget and future plans. I hope that the Minister, in the spirit of that probing amendment, will comment on those issues.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I shall first speak to amendment 78. There is no need for further powers to gather information about acoustic quality in schools. The Secretary of State has general powers to collect information in support of his functions and the Department has frequently conducted surveys on the condition, sufficiency and suitability of school buildings. It would be possible to gather information about acoustic quality under those existing powers.
The acoustic quality of new school buildings is covered by other legislation including building regulations made under the powers of the Building Act 1984. In addition, regulation 18 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 provides that each room or other space in a school building shall have the acoustic conditions and insulation against disturbance by noise appropriate to its normal use. The particular requirements of pupils with special educational needs, including those with special hearing requirements, are catered for by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which provides that every local authority must have a strategy for improving the accessibility of schools for pupils with a disability.
As part of the continuous review of the relevant regulations, the DCSF and the Department for Communities and Local Government are currently reviewing building bulletin 93, which gives guidance on compliance with acoustic standards for schools. The two Departments are liaising with the National Deaf Childrens Society and other stakeholders to ensure that the needs of deaf children, those with special hearing requirements and those with speech and language communication difficulties are fully considered in the review. The inclusion of the amendment would not, in my view, produce any additional improvement to the work already being undertaken in that area.
Amendment 289 is an important proposal for the collection of financial information from local authorities to see how they are supporting the provision for pupils with special educational needs. It offers a welcome opportunity to discuss the issue of funding for pupils with special educational needs. Local authorities and schools are funded to provide SEN services mainly through the dedicated schools grant. The Education Act 1996 requires local authorities, schools and early years settings to have regard to the SEN code of practice, which provides advice on their statutory duties to identify, assess and make provision for pupils with special educational needs. The code is clear that schools have a statutory duty to do their best to ensure that necessary provision is made for pupils special educational needs. It is also clear that whole-school measures can be affected in addressing some special educational needs and preventing others.
The Department collects data on what local authorities budget to spend on children with special educational needs and every mainstream school is given a notional sum for SEN as part of its budget information. We also collect outturn data on what is spent in maintained special schools and on pupils who are supported in non-maintained special schools and independent schools. However, as far as mainstream schools are concerned, the way in which they use their funding to fulfil SEN responsibilities does not necessarily entail having some staff who work exclusively with children with SEN, while other staff work exclusively with other children. In practice, most staff work for children with SEN as part of their wider responsibilities. If schools were required to account for the use of their funding for SEN purposes, they would have to attribute a proportion of each member of staffs time to their SEN responsibilities. It would be likely that different schools would estimate their SEN spending in different ways, so the information returned to the Department would have little meaning.
However, to ensure that they are making the best use of their resources, schools find it helpful to be able to estimate what they are spending on each activity to fulfil different responsibilities, and what impact that spending is having on pupil outcomes. In May last year an interactive resource pack was published by the Audit Commission to help schools to determine whether their spending on children with special educational needs offers value for money and makes real improvements to outcomes with those children. What matters most is the impact SEN spending has on pupil progression and outcomes. All schools should be monitoring and evaluating the progression made by children with SEN and considering what additional or alternative interventions might have more impact on progress. Inclusion of the amendment would not produce meaningful or reliable additional information to the Departments already comprehensive data collection. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to consider withdrawing his amendment.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for her initial positive comments about amendment 289. I feared, however, that she was toying with me when she led me to believe that she was suddenly going to adopt amendment 289. She then veered away from that, but she gave us a full response and that will be useful to both the Committee and to those in the wider world who are rightfully concerned about these issues. For that reason, I am satisfied with the Ministers response.

Nick Gibb: There were some encouraging words from the Minister on amendment 78. She said that building bulletin 93, which sets out the Governments standards on acoustics, is being reviewed, and that the Government are consulting the National Deaf Childrens Society as part of that review. That is welcome to Conservative Members, because the
NDCS has uncovered evidence that new schools are being built which effectively ignore the Governments standards on acoustics and which make it impossible for deaf children to listen and learn effectively in the classroom.
those are the words of the NDCS itself. Therefore, I hope that the Government review will go beyond simply changing the wording of building bulletin 93, and look into how that bulletin translates into design when it comes to the Building Schools for the Future programme. According to the NDCS, there is yet
no statutory requirement to test the acoustics of a school pre-completion to ensure that the standards have been met. Derogations from the standards are permissible and leading school designers and builders have told NDCS that this is widespread.
Therefore, I hope that the Government, when reviewing the bulletin, will look into that issue as well, rather than just carefully crafting a new phraseology for the bulletin. However, given that the Minister has reassured the Committee that there is a review under way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Christopher Chope: We now come to clause 237 stand part. It was proposed provisionally that that should be discussed along with Government amendments 560 and 561 and Government new clause 28, which were all tabled on Tuesday. If the Committee were meeting next Tuesday, they would not have been starred. But because we are effectively still meeting on Thursday 26 March, those amendments are starred. As I indicated at the outset of our proceedings, I was not going to be minded to accept starred amendments, and I do not intend to change my mind on that ruling. Therefore, those Government amendments and the new clause will not be selected for debate.

Clause 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 238 to 247 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 248

Orders and regulations

Amendments made: 187, in clause 248, page 147, line 16, after order insert or regulations.

The effect of this technical drafting amendment is that a statutory instrument containing regulations under clause 5 or clause 9 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
Amendment 188, in clause 248, page 147, line 17, leave out first or and insert
(other than an order under section 8) or under.(Jim Knight.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 152: its effect is that an order under clause 8 will not be subject to procedural requirements.

Clause 248, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 249 to 252 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16

Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: 516, in schedule 16, page 223, line 36, leave out , paragraphs 1, 3(1)(b) and 4(3) and insert
(a) paragraph 1;
(b) paragraph 2 (and the italic heading before it);
(c) paragraph 3(1)(b) (and the word and before it);
(d) paragraph 4(3);
(e) paragraph 29(a) (and the word and after it)..

This amendment inserts new entries into Schedule 16 (the repeals Schedule) to reflect repeals made by Schedule 12 to the Bill, including those related to amendments 501 and 502.
Amendment 517, in schedule 16, page 224, line 7, second column, at end insert
In section 216(2), the words paragraphs 1 to 4 and 9 of Schedule 17, and section 189 so far as relating to those paragraphs,.. (Jim Knight.)

This amendment inserts new entries into Schedule 16 (the repeals Schedule) for a provision which is spent as a result of the provisions in Schedule 12 to the Bill.

Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 253 and 254 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 255

Commencement

Amendment made: 496, in clause 255, page 149, line 30, after paragraphs insert 7C,.(Jim Knight.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 502. It allows the Welsh Ministers to commence the amendment to section 408(2)(e) of the Education Act 1996 in relation to Wales.

Clause 255, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 256 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 19

Release from detention of child or young person with special educational needs
(1) The Education Act 1996 (c. 56) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 312 insert
312A Children subject to detention
(1) No provision of, or made under, this Part applies in relation to a child who is subject to a detention order and detained in relevant youth accommodation.
(2) The following provisions of this section apply where a child who has been subject to a detention order is released having, immediately before release, been detained in relevant youth accommodation.
(3) Subject to subsection (5), a statement which was maintained for the child by a local education authority under section 324 immediately before the beginning of the detention is, from the childs release, to be treated as being maintained by that authority under section 324.
(4) In subsection (3) the beginning of the detention means
(a) the beginning of the period of detention in relevant youth accommodation, or
(b) where that period is part of a continuous period, comprising
(i) periods of detention in relevant youth accommodation and in other accommodation, or
(ii) periods of detention pursuant to two or more orders of any court,
the beginning of that continuous period.
(5) Where, on the childs release, a local education authority (the new authority) other than the authority mentioned in subsection (3) (the old authority) becomes responsible for the child for the purposes of this Part
(a) the old authority must transfer the statement to the new authority, and
(b) from the childs release, the statement is to be treated as being maintained by the new authority under section 324.
(3) In section 328(5) (reviews of educational needs), at the end of paragraph (a) (but before and) insert
(aa) where the child concerned
(i) has been subject to a detention order, and
(ii) immediately before release was detained in relevant youth accommodation,
on the childs release from detention,..(Jim Knight.)

This new clause inserts new provisions into Part 4 of the Education Act 1996 to suspend that Part while a person is detained in relevant youth accommodation and make provision for a statement of special educational needs maintained before a persons detention to be revived and reviewed on their release.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Free school meals
(1) A local education authority may provide registered students at
(a) a sixth form college, or
(b) a further education college,
who are over compulsory school age, but under 19, with lunches.
(2) Where provision is made under subsection (1) it shall be made in a case within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, either on the college premises or at any other place where education is being provided.
(3) A local education authority shall exercise its power under subsection (1) to provide college lunches for any person if
(a) any prescribed requirements are met,
(b) a request for the provision of college lunches has been made by or on behalf of that person to the authority, and
(c) either
(i) that person is eligible for free lunches (as defined by section 512ZB (4) of the Education Act 1996, or
(ii) in the case of a person within subsection (1) (a), it would not be unreasonable for the authority to provide the lunches.
(4) Where the local education authority provides lunch in accordance with subsection (3) to a person who is eligible for free lunches, the authority shall provide the meal free of charge..(Mr. Laws.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Laws: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are now on the new clauses and we are definitely seeing light at the end of the tunnel. New clause 1 raises two important issues that should be of interest and concern to this Government, for two reasons. First, we are increasingly seeing a large number of young people transferring, or potentially transferring, to a college setting from a school setting. We may anticipate that that will increase as the new diplomas are introduced, with the vocation elements, and as the 14-19 curriculum is developed. I think that we will see more movement of youngsters around the school and college sectors, in order to engage with that wider curriculum. Also, it is clearly the plan of the Government that more young people should stay on, or even be made to stay on, in education and training beyond the age of 16.
Therefore, as well as having those pressures on the college sector in terms of student numbers in the 14-19 age group, particularly the 16-19 age group, we will see a commitment by this Government to try to improve the uptake of school food and, presumably, food for all children. Since the Jamie Oliver campaign a few years ago, we have seen a lot of effort to try to improve the uptake in schools of school meals, both those that are free and those that are not free. Of course, so far that has met with, at best, very mixed success. The numbers in the secondary sector have plummeted and they have fallen in the primary sector. They only remained stable in the primary sector last year and they are probably continuing to fall in the secondary sector this year. It must be a concern of the Government that their strategy on free school meals means that half the children in poverty in the United Kingdom are, unbelievably, not entitled to free school meals. My new clause may help to address that part of the problem.
New clause 1 would give a responsibility to education authorities, where requested by students at sixth-form or further education college who are in the relevant age group and who would, in a school setting, have access to school food, to ensure that meals could be accessed on the same basis as in schools. We also want those young people to be able to get access to free school meals on the same basis as happens in the school sector.
I was very surprised when I checked the figures a few months ago and discovered that a student in a college setting who would in a school be entitled to free school meals is not entitled to them at present, and is therefore very unfairly treated. If the Government are concerned about the fact that half of young people in poverty are not entitled to free school meals, this is one way in which they could fulfil the pledge they have made, just as they could also consider changing the rules that were amended in the 1980s to stop the entitlement to free school meals of people who were in work, but on low incomes and on family credit.
The new clause deals with a particular injustice, which is the unequal treatment of young people who have in all respects the same characteristics as those entitled to school meals, but who are in the college rather than school sector.

Sharon Hodgson: I will not make a long intervention but, as hon. Members are probably aware, the subject of free school meals is one of my passions. I have been pushing for several years for them to be made universal. Is the hon. Gentleman also referring to the threshold by which free school meals can be claimed? Does he feel that it should be raised? I want to prise out of him his view about universal free school meals. Does he think that they would be a good idea?

David Laws: The hon. Lady has raised two important points that could be directly relevant to the amendment, because if the terms under which free school meals were made available were to change for students in the school sector, logically, under my new clause, they would need to change for the colleges sector. My view is that it is unlikely that in the near future a Government of any complexion will pay the £2 billion that would make all school meals free, but I agree that we could reverse the change made by the Tory Government in the 1980s when they took away the entitlement that 500,000 children then had to free school meals on the basis of family credit. That would be a welcome change and, alongside the proposals to give justice to students in college, it could make a real different to the number of young people in poverty who get free school meals.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentlemans new clause would create a scheme similar to free school meals entitlement, as he said, but it would not take account of the different post-16 learning routes now on offer to young people. Not all young people get access to further education in a college setting. A number of young people are in unpaid as well as paid work-based learning and would be excluded from the scheme that the hon. Gentleman proposes.
However, we have some sympathy with the hon. Gentlemans intention. We announced in the New Opportunities White Paper that we published earlier in the year a review of financial support for 16 to 18-year-olds to ensure that the system supports the new duty to remain in education or training until the age of 18. The review will look at learner support and benefits and we will further consider the support packages available in the light of that review. Obviously I will ensure that the interesting comments of both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West will feed into that. I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Member for Yeovil will feel able to withdraw his fine new clause, knowing that his point has been made and well heard.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister and partly encouraged, because if I heard him correctly, he said that the new clause was a good thing and that the problem was that it did not go far enough. That is not often said of Liberal Democrat amendments, although we have obviously become much more prudent as the Governments fiscal irresponsibility has become increasingly apparent. The more serious point is that that is a live issue, because the Government are considering the terms on which school meals, and meals for people under the age of 19 in educational settings, should be available.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West will be aware, because the announcement was made by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families at last years Labour party conference, that the Government are piloting various ways of extending free meals for young people. Some of those pilots are a bit of a tease, because I am not sure that the Secretary of State has the slightest intention of paying the £2 billion cost for deliver those undertakings.

Sharon Hodgson: The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned the figure of £2 billion. I asked the Library to investigate that, and it came back to me with a figure of between £0.9 billion and £1.1 billion as the cost, so that should put the record straight.

David Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that, but I think that she is quoting the figure for making meals free in primary schools, which I think the Government are looking at. When I tabled a question to the Department, I was told that the figure was £2 billion£1 billion each for the primary and secondary sectors. That is understandable, but in a sense slightly odd, because there is currently more of a challenge in the secondary sector, where young people are voting with their feet and not taking school meals.
My point is that the Ministers suggestions are welcome, because if the Secretary of State is not going to deliver free school meals in either the primary or secondary sectors, the Government might be looking for some other sensible things to do to ensure that they deliver the objective, which I and, I am sure, many Labour Members share, of ensuring that the 26 to 28 per cent. of youngsters in this country who, sadly, still live in relative poverty are entitled to free meals at lunchtime in an educational setting when under the age of 19. It is a scandal that half the young people living in relative poverty do not get that entitlement, and I am sure that the Minister is serious about those undertakings.

Emily Thornberry: Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he welcome Islington councils recent decision to give free school meals to all primary school children in the borough?

David Laws: The hon. Lady asks me to comment on the decisions of an individual council, but she knows that I, as a Liberal Democrat, cannot do that, because we do not believe in dictating to local authorities. I seek to influence national policy, which is our responsibility hereI do not want her to tempt me into the shark-infested waters of Islington politics.
I ask the Minister to look first at the young people who ought to be entitled to free meals in the college sector, and secondly at whether young people whose parents receive working tax creditsthe equivalent of the family credit, which used to be a passport for entitlement in the 1980scould become entitled. That would be far more affordable than making all meals in educational settings free, so I hope that the Government will think about that in their review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Sharing of information for education and training purposes
(1) A person within subsection (3) may provide information to another person within that subsection, or a person within subsection (4), for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the exercise of any relevant function.
(2) A person within subsection (4) may provide information to a person within subsection (3) for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the exercise of any relevant function.
(3) The persons within this subsection are
(a) the Chief Executive;
(b) the Young Peoples Learning Agency for England;
(c) a designated person;
(d) a member of the Chief Executives staff;
(e) a member of staff of a designated person;
(f) a person providing services to any person within paragraphs (a) to (c).
(4) The persons within this subsection are
(a) a local education authority in England;
(b) a person providing services to a local education authority in England in its capacity as such.
(5) In subsections (1) and (2), relevant function means
(a) any function of the Chief Executive,
(b) any function of the Young Peoples Learning Agency for England, or
(c) any function conferred on a local education authority in England in its capacity as such,
other than a function under this section.
(6) In this section
the Chief Executive means the Chief Executive of Skills Funding;
designated person means a person by whom any function of the Chief Executive is exercisable by virtue of section 79(1);
member of staff of a designated person means a person
(a) appointed by a designated person to assist the designated person in connection with the performance of any function exercisable by the designated person by virtue of section 79(1), or
(b) exercising any function of the Chief Executive by virtue of section 79(4);
member of the Chief Executives staff means
(c) a member of the Chief Executives staff appointed by the Chief Executive under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, or
(d) a member of staff provided to the Chief Executive by the Secretary of State under arrangements under paragraph 5 of that Schedule.
(7) Nothing in this section
(a) affects any power to disclose information that exists apart from this section, or
(b) authorises the disclosure of any information in contravention of any provision made by or under any Act which prevents disclosure of the information..(Jim Knight.)

This new clause replaces clause 119 to allow information sharing between bodies and persons replacing the Learning and Skills Council. It differs from clause 119 in not extending local education authorities existing statutory powers to share information with each other and in defining member of the Chief Executives staff.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Surrender of recognition
(1) A recognised body may give notice to Ofqual that it wishes to cease to be recognised in respect of the award or authentication of a specified qualification or description of qualification.
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after receipt of a notice under subsection (1) Ofqual must give notice to the recognised body of the date on which the body is to cease to be recognised in the respect in question (the surrender date).
(3) In deciding the surrender date Ofqual must have regard to the need to avoid prejudicing persons who are seeking, or might reasonably be expected to seek, to obtain the qualification, or a qualification of the description, specified in the notice under subsection (1).
(4) Ofqual may make saving or transitional provision in connection with a recognised body ceasing to be recognised in any respect by virtue of this section..(Jim Knight.)

This new clause allows a recognised body to surrender recognition by giving notice to Ofqual. Ofqual has the power to decide the date on which the surrender takes effect (acting in accordance with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3)) and may make saving or transitional provision.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Duty not to impose or maintain unnecessary burdens
(1) Ofqual must keep its regulatory functions under review.
(2) Ofqual must secure that in performing any of its regulatory functions it does not
(a) impose burdens which it considers to be unnecessary, or
(b) maintain burdens which it considers to have become unnecessary.
(3) Subsection (2) does not require the removal of a burden which has become unnecessary where its removal would, having regard to all the circumstances, be impracticable or disproportionate.
(4) Ofqual must publish a statement setting out
(a) what it proposes to do pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) in the period to which the statement relates,
(b) (except in the case of the first statement published under this section) what it has done pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) since the previous statement was published under this section, and
(c) where a burden which has become unnecessary is maintained pursuant to subsection (3), the reasons why the removal of the burden would, having regard to all the circumstances, be impracticable or disproportionate.
(5) The first statement published under this section
(a) must be published as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of section 124, and
(b) is to be a statement for the period of 12 months beginning with the day of its publication.
(6) A subsequent statement published under this section
(a) must be published during the period to which the previous statement related or as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period, and
(b) must be a statement for the period of 12 months beginning with the end of the period to which the previous statement related.
(7) Ofqual must, in performing any of its regulatory functions during a period for which a statement is in force under this section, have regard to the statement.
(8) In this section regulatory function has the same meaning as in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c. 51) (see section 32 of that Act)..(Jim Knight.)

This new clause imposes a duty on Ofqual not to impose or maintain unnecessary regulatory burdens. The clause is similar in effect to section 72 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, which imposes almost identical duties on a range of transfers.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Parental complaints: law of defamation
(1) For the purposes of the law of defamation the following are absolutely privileged
(a) the publication of any matter in communications between a governing body and a Local Commissioner, or any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner, for the purposes of this Chapter;
(b) the publication of any matter by a Local Commissioner or by any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner, in communicating for the purposes of this Chapter with a person mentioned in subsection (2);
(c) the publication of any matter in preparing, making and sending a statement in accordance with section 199;
(d) the publication of any matter by inclusion in an adverse findings notice published in accordance with section 200(3), (4) and (5) or (6);
(e) the publication of any matter by inclusion in a statement or summary published or supplied under section 201;
(f) the publication of any matter contained in a report by a Local Commissioner which has been made available to the public, being publication by inclusion in a report made or published under section 204.
(2) The persons mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are
(a) the governing body;
(b) the complainant (or, if the complainant is the pupil, a parent of the complainant);
(c) Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Education, Childrens Services and Skills;
(d) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;
(e) a local education authority (within the meaning given by section 12 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56));
(f) the Secretary of State..(Jim Knight.)

This new clause provides absolute privilege for the purposes of defamation. It ensures that statements, communications, and certain other publications made by the Local Commissioner and other parties during the course of an investigation into a complaint cannot be sued on as defamatory.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

Parental complaints: consultation with Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
(1) Subsection (2) applies if, at any stage in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, a Local Commissioner forms the opinion that the matters which are the subject of the investigation include a matter which could be the subject of an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in accordance with the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13) (the 1967 Act).
(2) The Local Commissioner
(a) must consult the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration about the matter; and
(b) where a complaint was made about the matter must, if the Local Commissioner considers it necessary, inform the complainant of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under the 1967 Act.
(3) Consultation under subsection (2)(a) in relation to a matter under investigation under this Chapter may be about anything relating to the matter, including
(a) the conduct of any investigation into the matter; and
(b) the form, content and publication of any report or statement of the result of such an investigation.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under the 1967 Act, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be the subject of an investigation under this Chapter.
(5) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
(a) must consult the appropriate Local Commissioner about the complaint; and
(b) where the Parliamentary Commissioner considers it necessary, must inform the person initiating the complaint of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under this Chapter.
(6) Where a Local Commissioner is consulted about a complaint under the 1967 Act by virtue of subsection (5), subsection (3) applies (with the necessary modifications) as it applies in relation to consultations held by virtue of subsection (2).
(7) Section 11(2) of the 1967 Act (secrecy) does not apply in relation to the disclosure of information in the course of consultations held in accordance with this section.(Jim Knight.)

This new clause places a duty on both the Local Commissioner and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to consult and disclose information to one another where a complaint they are investigating may relate to a matter the other is also investigating.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

Parental complaints: arrangements etc. to be made by Commission
(1) The Commission for Local Administration in England (the Commission) must
(a) divide the matters which may be investigated under this Chapter into such categories as it considers appropriate; and
(b) allocate, or make arrangements for allocating, responsibility for each category of matter to one or more of the Local Commissioners.
(2) The Commission
(a) must make arrangements for Local Commissioners to deal with matters for which they do not have responsibility pursuant to subsection (1); and
(b) must publish information about the procedures for making complaints under this Chapter..(Jim Knight.)

This new clause provides that the Commission may divide matters which may be investigated into appropriate categories and allocate responsibility for each category between the Local Commissioners. The Commission must also publish information about the procedures for making complaints under Chapter 2 of Part 10.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Children to be seen separately
After section 16 of the Children Act 2004 insert
16A Children to be seen separately
(1) The childrens services authority shall secure that, when any child who is the subject of
(a) an investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, or
(b) a child protection plan agreed by the Local Safeguarding Children Board
is visited by his or her key worker, the child shall if practicable and reasonable in the circumstances, be seen separately from his or her parent or care-giver.
(2) Where the child is not seen separately from his or her parent or care-giver under subsection (1) the reasons for not doing so shall be recorded by the key worker.
(3) The key worker referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is
(a) in the case of subsection (1)(a) the lead social worker appointed by the childrens services authority; and
(b) in the case of subsection (1)(b), the key worker appointed by the Local Safeguarding Children Board..(Mr. Laws.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Laws: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is me again.

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman said around four hours ago that he was speaking for the last time.

David Laws: No, what I very carefully said was that it was my last major speech, not the last time that I would speak. Having said that, I apologise to the Committee, because we have been sitting for a very long period. Members of staff and others, including Labour Members, have been patient and the Ministers have moved into their finishing-straight positions.
I had assumed that the new clauses were not of crucial importance and that we could discuss them at a later stage, but this morning, when I looked at new clause 21, which is inspired by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, I saw that it is actually rather important. Despite the fact that the Committee has been sitting for a long period, it would be unsatisfactory if we did not discuss the new clause, because it relates to the concerns highlighted by the baby P case and Lord Lamings report. The new clause contains an important suggestion for Ministers, and I would appreciate a response from them. I therefore ask for some tolerance from the Committee while I outline some of the new clauses key elements. After the Minister responds, I promise that I will not detain the Committee longer.
As I have said, the new clause is inspired, and was drafted, by the NSPCC and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, who has considerable expertise on the issue. The new clause would introduce a statutory duty to ensure that a key worker sees a child separately from his or her parents. Some members of the Committee will probably know why the new clause is important and topical.
Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 requires a local authority to make inquiries when a child is suspected to be suffering or likely to suffer from significant harm. A child protection plan is drawn up when the local safeguarding children board decides that a child is at significant risk of harm. Examples of when seeing a child separately might not be practicable or reasonable are when parents refuse consent, when the child refuses to be seen alone or is plainly distressed at the prospect, when the child has recently been seen separately, or if the child is asleep during the visit. It is not envisaged that the key worker would necessarily see the child for long or that the child would be subjected to any medical or forensic examination or interrogation. The purpose of recording the reasons for the inability to see the child is to allow for persistent obstruction by parents to be highlighted. Even sensible reasons, such as the child being asleep, might become of concern if persistent.
Currently, there is no law on seeing children separately, but both legislation and guidance note the importance of obtaining childrens views and perspectives. Section 53 of the Children Act 2004 placed a new duty on local authorities to ascertain and give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of children before providing services under section 17. The statutory guidance on child protection, Working Together to Safeguard Children, emphasises the central importance of the child in safeguarding procedures, and we have seen that in the baby P case and some of the other cases highlighted recently. That document states:
Some of the worst failures of the system have occurred when professionals have lost sight of the child and concentrated instead on their relationship with the adults. The child should be seen by the practitioner and kept in focus throughout the work with the child and family. The childs voice should be heard and account taken of their
perspectives and views.
The guidance emphasises that assessing the risk of significant harm depends on effectively communicating with children and young people, including those who find it difficult to do so because of their age, an impairment, or their psychological or social situation. The local authority childrens social care has legal responsibility for section 47 investigations, which it says should always involve separate interviews with the child who is the subject of concern. The key worker appointed at the child protection conference should regularly ascertain the childs wishes and feelings in relation to that situation.
Ministers might well ask why those obligations should be in the law rather than in statutory guidance. The NSPCC, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I believe that they should be a legal duty for two reasons. Firstly, seeing the child separately from the parents is the only way in which the key worker can reliably fulfil their duties under section 53 of the 2004 Act. Seeing the child separately is also central to the effective protection of children. On reading the serious case review of the tragic baby P case earlier this year and last year, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families noted in his press conference statement that:
The Inspectors also highlight a failure to talk directly to the children at risk; and where children were not seen alone, it worries me greatly that the Inspectors find little evidence of management follow-up to ensure that children suspected of being abused were properly heard and able to speak up without fear.
As one of the few, sadly, who has been able to read the baby P serious case review, I can confirm that that is one of the major considerations, and one of the major concerns that anyone looking at the detail of how that case was handled would have. It is clear from the three official overviews of child serious case reviews that the guidance on the need to see children is not sufficient. The overviews all note that there is little to no evidence that children subsequently murdered or injured were ever seen or talked to directly. They stress the importance of that point. The overview relating to the earlier periodthe 2001-03 documentsdeals with the failure to protect vulnerable children because of the loss of focus on the child or their circumstances. That issue came up in Lord Lamings recent review.
Such a provision would help key workers in their extremely difficult task of simultaneously supporting and policing parents. It would allow the key worker to explain that they are simply following the law when requesting to see a child alone, and that that does not imply a lack of trust in the parents. That is an extremely important point, given that many parents about whose children there are protection concerns will be quite sensitive about the circumstances in which those key workers see the child alone. A strong parent-child attachment is critical to the childs healthy development, and it is essential that key workers can nurture proper relationships with parents, which can be done only if there is transparency.
I hope that you understand, Mr. Chope, why I felt it necessary to give a proper airing to this important and substantive new clause. I do not necessarily expect it to be included in the Bill immediately, but I hope that the Minister will respond to it positively.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In what is probably our last exchange on this Bill, I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his very generous comments to me yesterday.
This is an important new clause on a matter that we take very seriously. It is essential that social workers can see a child alone when making section 47 inquiries or when the child is subject to a child protection plan. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Governments statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, makes it clear that section 47 inquiries should always involve the allocated social worker, who is also the key worker, undertaking separate interviews with the child who is the subject of concern. Working Together also addresses a situation in which a child cannot take part in an interview, because of their age or level of understanding. If the child is very young, and therefore unable to communicate verbally, the social worker must carefully observe the child with their family and, if appropriate, with other adults or care givers. Working Together also states that the child protection plan should be explained to, and agreed with, the child in a manner appropriate to their age and understanding.
Social workers are expected to make all reasonable efforts to persuade parents to co-operate with section 47 inquiries. However, if parents refuse access to the child, or if the social worker is concerned that they cannot see the child alone, the local authority has powers, under the Children Act 1989, to apply for an appropriate court order. The local authority may apply for a child assessment order, and the court may direct the parents or care givers to co-operate with an assessment of the childs health and development. If there is a risk to the childs life or a likelihood of serious, immediate harm, the local authority may apply for an emergency protection order, the making of which will ensure that either the child remains in a safe place, such as a hospital, or is removed to a safe place, for example with foster carers. When the order is made, the local authority should quickly commence section 47 inquiries. Following such inquiries, the local authority must consider what action to take to protect the child. That includes deciding whether to initiate care or other proceedings, or to let the order lapse and the child return home.
Local authorities and social worker are expected to record their work with a child and family accurately and in a timely manner. Those records should include whether the child is seen and who else is present. The guidance states clearly that key records, such as section 47 inquiries and child protection plans, should be recorded in a manner consistent with the relevant exemplars in the integrated childrens system. The social worker should also record the childs wishes and feelings. The child protection review record for the child who is the subject of a child protection plan records the dates on which the child was seen since the last review and whether they were seen alone. In the planned revision of Working Together, we will ensure that that same recording commitment is made explicit when a child is the subject of section 47 inquiries.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the matter seriously. We believe that it is already embedded in statutory guidance and that the local authority has the necessary powers to take appropriate action. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the motion.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. It was important to air that issue; we will want to return to it on another occasion, when we will have a full opportunity to expand on some of the points. I thank her for the positive way in which she has responded not only to the new clause but for the past 24 to 48 hoursI have lost track of how long it has been. All the Ministers, to be fair, have been extremely constructive, positive and helpful to the Committee, but I particularly appreciate her response, given that she has had to deal with the Bill over such a long period with so few breaks and with four Opposition spokesmen against her.
If you will allow me, Mr. Chope, I would also like to thank Government Members for their involvement and Conservative Members for their co-operation with us on many issues, although not all. I thank you and Mrs. Humble for the way in which you have chaired our proceedings over the past few weeks, particularly you for chairing our proceedings and steering us over the rocks during the past 48 hours. Finally, I thank all the others who have supported the Committee during the past few weeks, and the past 48 hours in particular: the staff, police, Clerks, Hansard reporters and officials from the Department. They have done such a good job, particularly in the past 48 antisocial hours. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Jim Knight: It is usual at this point in the Committee stage of a Bill to extend the courtesy of thanking all the people whom the hon. Gentleman just listed. In this case, there are exceptional reasons why we should offer those courtesies, and with great feeling. I shall not rehearse the sometimes tetchy exchanges that we have had in the past hours; those are on the record anyway. I want to be much more positive.
The Bill is not an easy oneit is a long and complicated one. At times, it more than tried the patience of all those involved. I am extremely personally grateful to you and Mrs. Humble for your forbearance, Mr. Chope, particularly your own forbearance under the strains that you have had to bear during the past hours. However difficult it may have been, hon. Members from both Front Benches have demonstrated extreme competence and professionalism in scrutinising the Bill. At times, they may have felt that they were not given as much opportunity to prepare as they could have been given, because of the number of amendments and so on, but they have gone about their business in an extremely constructive way, and the Bill benefits from that level of scrutiny.
The progressive hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has been exemplary in that regard. It is unkind that the hon. Member for Yeovil has been labelled Johnny No-mates; I am sure that he has some. Similarly, I feel that it is equally unfair for people to suggest that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings might be verbose and regressive in contrast with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I thank the other members of the Committee, especially the Whips, and am particularly grateful for the interest shown in this Committee at the most senior level by the Whips Office.
I thank my officials, from John the apprentice in the Bill team all the way through to the lawyers, the policy officials and the rest of the Bill team; the Hansard Reporters and Badge Messengers; the police and security staff; the refreshment staff and other staff of the House who have sustained us over the past 27 hours; and particularly the Clerks, who I know bear a great strain in keeping us on the straight and narrow and advising all of us, and especially you, Mr. Chope. This is a good Bill, and I am proud to propose that we should report it to the House.

Nick Gibb: I want to add my thanks to those of the Minister to House officials, police and doormen, for all their work over the past few weeks. My thanks also to the Clerks, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Davies, for their work and advice, and thanks to the Hansard writers and the staff of the House for their patience, particularly over the past 48 hours. On behalf of all the Members of the Committee I would like to thank both Chairmen, Mr. Chope and Mrs. Humble, for their studious and fair chairmanship during what has been a long and troubled Committee.
I offer my deepest sympathy to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport on the loss of her fatherit must be a terrible time for her. I am grateful therefore to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness who stayed away while she was awayif not him, then somebody else to take his place during the Committee.
I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for his lively contributions to our proceedings and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for helping out with her specialist knowledge on early years and childrens issues, and of course a great big thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his erudition and his careful scrutiny of the DIUS parts of the Bill. I have worked on three Bills with him and it is always a pleasure, despite our occasional disagreements on philosophy.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because this gives me an opportunity to right a wrong. I forgot to mention the Children, Schools and Families Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, and the Innovation, Universities and Skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. They have done an admirable job on their first occasion to lead on a Bill as Ministers and I am extremely grateful to them.

Nick Gibb: Finally, I would like to say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster for his huge help, particularly during the past 24 hours, which without him would have been extremely difficult. This whole Committee has been difficult for me. The burden of Committee proceedings falls on the Opposition and this has been the most extraordinary Bill Committee I have served on in my 12 years in the House, and I have served on many during that period. We have had Ministers voting the wrong way on clause 49not just once but twicewe became inquorate, and we had Labour Members failing to turn up for a 9 oclock start and as a consequence losing three votes. Those things are forgivable and one could maintain a sense of humour about them if it had not been for what then happened, which was a totally unnecessary long session out of sheer petulance, an approach I am sure will be monitored outside this House and about which I am quite cross and angryas are other members of this Committee. We met from 9 oclock on Thursday through to 4.30 in the morning, with periodic breaks, and from 8.15 this morning until 12.20 today. We met for just four hours today. We could easily have concluded our deliberations next Tuesday, especially with a longer sitting, as had been agreed on Thursday. We have now finished this Committee and yet we have a full days Committee left in the programme motion. The cost to the House of Commons in terms of taxi fares and other expenses will run into thousands of poundssomething I hope to find out about through the Speakers Office.
More important even than that, is the disruption to staff who work in the House. More than the disruption, which they are used to periodically, at no point was any clarity given so that they could phone their families and tell them what was happening to their working day, which I find deeply uncaring and surprising coming from Members of a party which claims to be caring for people in their working lives. I find it rather offensive and difficult to understand. Ministers claim that there has been filibusteringI know what filibustering is, I have been in the House long enough to identify it. Although the hon. Member for Yeovil goes on a bit sometimes, as does my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, neither of them was doing anything other than his normal thorough scrutiny of the Bill, which as the Minister said involved 256 clauses, 16 schedules and more than 200 Government amendments.
Hostility to parliamentary scrutiny is a sign of arrogance and of the final months of a tired and dying Government, as is the failure of Government Back Benchers to be bothered to get out of bed to be here for the Committees 9 oclock start. That is all I want to say on that matter, Mr. Chope. I thank you and Mrs. Humble for your careful chairmanship of the Committee. I hope we never again have proceedings in Committee so poorly managed by Ministers and so petulantly directed from the Government Whips Office.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support and to the hon. Member for Yeovil for his support on some of our amendments and for his very valuable contributions to the scrutiny of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Before I put the question, I wish to express my very great appreciation to my co-Chairman for all her work in Committee. I must congratulate her on her foresight in accepting so readily my invitation, which I gave to her almost 24 hours ago, to take over the Chair from 4 oclock on Thursday. I do not think that even she could have realised the extent to which that obligation would extend. She has enabled our proceedings to go extremely well, and I am glad that she has been able to fulfil some of the commitments that she already had for today.
May I also thank the Clerks, the Hansard reporters, the Badge Messengers, the police, catering staff and all other servants of the House who have been involved in helping us in our proceedings. Sometimes I think that the thanks given are almost ritual, but in this case they are extremely heartfelt. I would like to put on record my apology to the Members of the House and officials to whom I gave information on the basis of information provided to me, which was that the proceedings would be adjourned when we got to clause 215. I passed that information on to them and it turned out to be erroneous.
During todays proceedings I have put on record my concern at the nature of communications with the Chair. I am sure that other members of the Chairmens Panel will wish to discuss it. It is absolutely essential that the Chair is recognised by members of the Committee as having an important part to play in being informed of what is happening. I just put that on record again.
I do not think that the Committee would have been able to operate on automatic pilot, as it did on one occasion when I was a member of a Committee chaired by Mr. Ted Leadbitter. In the early hours of the morning, he was in the Chair asleep and, when he woke up, he congratulated the Committee on having been on automatic pilot without troubling him. That is a reminder of the fact that it used to be pretty commonplace for Committees to sit through the night. It is not so common now, but perhaps new precedents have been set in the consideration of this particular Bill.
I can tell right hon. and hon. Members that I gain some comfort from the fact that members of the Committee are now more familiar with some of the rules of procedure and Standing Orders than they were at the outset of our proceedings. That can only be to everyones benefit. We will find out in due course how our proceedings have been treated in terms of precedents and whether Committees have sat continuously for longer. I recallagain, many years agowhen the Greater London Council Paving Bill was being debated. I think that it went on for a day and a half sitting continuously, and at the end of it all, the British Printing Industries Federation sent those of us who had participated in all Divisions a certificate of thanks because we had contributed so significantly to the profits of the printing industry. I am not sure whether any of us will qualify for such a certificate as a result of our deliberations, but I hand out a hint to the printing industryif it wishes to proceed in that way. Without further ado, I shall put the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose.